Re: [VOTE]strn(case)cmp supporting a negative length as its third paramter

Laruence wrote: > I think we are not talking about how to accomplish a function, we > are talking about how to do it better > > and, in fact, I think strrev is need more cpu time and alloc space, > although they are very tiny :) I very much doubt it's ever going to be a bottleneck (and I think the same about strncmp vs. substr; no real need to avoid a temp variable). I could see this patch being useful, but personally, I think the substr solution is a better one, since it doesn't risk breaking BC, as Rasmus noted. -- Ryan McCue <http://ryanmccue.info/>