Re^3: better (faster) way of writing regexp

At those rates the differences shown are pretty much meaningless. And I simply don't believe repeat2 - how can wallclock be 0, but the other results identical to repeat?

True laziness is hard work

Comment on Re^3: better (faster) way of writing regexp

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: better (faster) way of writing regexp by keszler (Priest) on Dec 02, 2009 at 23:03 UTC
I don't know what happened with repeat2; the results I posted were cut-n-pasted unchanged. I plan to dig into it tonight to see if I can reproduce and diagnose the glitch.	[reply]
Re^5: better (faster) way of writing regexp by diotalevi (Canon) on Dec 03, 2009 at 04:12 UTC
It's the difference between a duck. You're probably attempting to measure something less expensive than the random noise on your system. ⠤⠤ ⠙⠊⠕⠞⠁⠇⠑⠧⠊	[reply]