Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!decwrl!ucbvax!LAGUNA.METAPHOR.COM!alex
From: alex@LAGUNA.METAPHOR.COM (Bob Alexander)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.icon
Subject: Re: partial input ...
Message-ID: <9104111756.AA14124@laguna.Metaphor.COM>
Date: 11 Apr 91 17:56:43 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Distribution: inet
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 16

I, too, was interested in seeing how the obvious terser version of
Richard G's complete() procedure would work.  My terse version was much
like Jerry N's (before I saw Jerry's).  So I did some timings, and
here's what I found:  The terse version was faster when used with a
list with a size on the order of Richard's or Jerry's sample program
(how much faster depended on the size of input string).  *However*,
when the list gets large (~100 entries), Richard's wins hands down.

I guess that makes sense -- Richard's run time will vary
(predominantly) with the size of the abbreviated string, where the
terse method varies with the size of the list.

-- Bob Alexander

Metaphor Computer Systems   (415) 961-3600 x751   alex@metaphor.com
====^=== Mountain View, CA  ...{uunet}!{decwrl,apple}!metaphor!alex