Re: [sip-clf] New CLF Syntax draft (text with index)

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

Simon Perreault wrote:
> Adam Roach wrote, on 07/05/09 02:56 PM:
>> This is about a 20% premium over the binary format, and a 48% premium
>> over the text format. Speed of generation should be on the same order of
>> speed as the other two versions, and speed of processing should be
>> approximately the same as processing binary.
>
> Iteresting! Thanks for writing this.
>
> Why did you include pointers as well as lengths? It seems to me that length is
> redundant, since you can deduce it by computing the difference between two
> pointers (still an O(1) operation).

I considered doing it both ways, but decided that I preferred the slight 
space impact of being able to get to any fixed field by looking at only 
two numbers instead of all the preceding fields. I'm open to doing just 
lengths if people are very sensitive to the size of each record, but 
have a personal preference for what's in the draft currently.

/a