(tye)Re: Benchmarking chop/substr/split

Well, I bet it would be possible to teach Perl to optimize substr($str,-1) (when not being assigned to and when the "-1" is a literal constant) into chop. But then, why? That is, would the bit of bloat (and the potential for introducing bugs) be worth allowing people to write chop long-hand without the performance penalty?

BTW, they are all close enough to the same speed that I don't think I'd ever worry about the speed difference. (:

- tye (but my friends call me "Tye")

Comment on (tye)Re: Benchmarking chop/substr/split Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: (tye)Re: Benchmarking chop/substr/split by larryl (Monk) on Mar 17, 2001 at 02:15 UTC
True, it might not be worth the bloat for something not frequently used. I'm just in a fuss because I read that gnat wants to take chop() out of the core. I like chop. chop is my friend. I don't want to have to type `$a = substr($_,-1); substr($_,-1) = ''` when what I want is `$a = chop`. Pout. Besides, it's at least twice as fast every place I've tested it. If you need to check a few thousand credit cards a day, it makes a noticeable difference.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
(tye)Re2: Benchmarking chop/substr/split by tye (Sage) on Mar 17, 2001 at 02:19 UTC
Yeah, I like chop too. FYI, you don't have to repeat the substr: `$a= substr($_,-1,1,"");` Though this doesn't work in older versions of Perl. - tye (but my friends call me "Tye")	[reply] [d/l]