guido wrote: > > Well, I can't check it in, so assigning it back to me would be = fairly > > pointless. Someone should also chime in on the Tools/perfecthash = stuff as > > well. If we want to keep it, I'll see if I can come up with an = example > > using Python's tokens since the data set is way smaller. :) >=20 > I've learned from the sad NumPy experience that it's really bad to > generate code and then throw away the generator and start editing the > generated code... So please keep the generator up-to-date! note that if #100899 goes in instead, Bill's tweak of Andrew's original code won't be needed for anything related to unicode. the perfect hash module is still a useful tool (not that I ever got it to do a decent job on the unicode database. Bill's either very lucky, or he's got a really fast computer... ;-) </F>
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4