On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 3:32 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
> So you want offset N to be the nth element in the array instead of the >
element with index N? Huh.
Maybe, not always. Both would be nice. The offset isn't the element with
the index N. It's the next set element whose index is >= that of the
se
On 9/26/16 11:47 AM, Dan Douglas wrote:
> Would an array of pointers to structs of key-value pairs be better
> here? It should be faster in the common cases even though it may mean
> some wasted space and reallocs depending on how you decide to grow the
> array. A linear search through an array for
Would an array of pointers to structs of key-value pairs be better
here? It should be faster in the common cases even though it may mean
some wasted space and reallocs depending on how you decide to grow the
array. A linear search through an array for an index should be faster
than linked-list trav
On 09/25/2016 05:39 PM, Chet Ramey wrote:
>> Description:
>> If the history file (`.bash_history`) starts with a timestamp
>> (`HIST_TIMESTAMP_START`), and contains lines that have been written
>> without timestamps, then reading the history file is (a) very slow
>> because (b)
