Re: Qi Symbols parser performance

Hello Joel,

thanks for your response!

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 4:49 PM, Joel de Guzman <[email protected]> wrote:

> 1) Why use grammars and rules? Those are unnecessary. You can use
>    symbols directly.
>

Well, yes, I know. I have been using spirit for so many years, that's just
the way I use it because that was how I learned it back then. I suppose
that wouldn't explain a difference of this magnitude though. I will still
test this without the grammar to rule out overhead brought in this way.


> 2) Symbols use ternary search tries: http://tinyurl.com/ydy3fnnp
> 3) They might not be the best choice for your use case. They are best
>    used for parsing languages, especially when you expect lots of partial
>    matches and misses (e.g. keywords in a language, where you expect other
>    lexemes apart from just keywords.
>
>
The way I understand that order is not that different from how an rb-tree
would order a map now, is it? Which is why I brought this up. No matter how
bad a choice the used datastructure would be, shouldn't it still _not_ be
outperformed by a blank unordered list of strings which are compared one
after the other, doing the lowercasing each time?

Cheers,
Stephan

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot

_______________________________________________
Spirit-general mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/spirit-general