Add support for emitting flattened case tables #34
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Hey @BurntSushi I would really appreciate this change. Reducing the work at load time non-trivially is a huge win. Can you please review? |
|
Hey, I'll try to rebase this on monday. |
BurntSushi
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 5, 2022
This permits writing tables using '[char; 3]' instead of '&[char]'. The latter is a fat point taking up 16 bytes by itself, where as the former is an inlined sequence of 3 codepoints, using only 12 bytes. Since the new representation drops the length encoded in '&[char]', we use the NUL codepoint as a sentinel. See #33 for a more in depth description with additional upsides of this new mode. Closes #33, Closes #34
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fixes #33, which is where you should look for far too many words describing this.
Ideally we'd somehow deprecate the old version -- I don't think there's any case where it's better except for being arguably a little cleaner, and IMO defaulting to a larger, less efficient format isn't really great, even if it does avoid being a breaking change.
I'm willing to change name/description/etc of stuff -- I don't have an opinion really.