I'm inclined to agree that the speed difference would most likely be small enough that it wouldn't be the primary deciding factor for me in this case. I prefer the sprintf method for ease of implementation and maintenance. If you add in the cost of calling an encapsulated zero-padder instead of printf, your times may be even closer.
Alan
In reply to Re: sprintf vs. substr (for zero-padded values)
by ferrency
in thread sprintf vs. substr (for zero-padded values)
by Theseus
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |