> Now I'm going to object LOUDLY. You cannot convince me that the above
> is a good implementation --- it's a complete crock, and will break the
> instant someone looks at it sidewise.
But it hasn't broken in years of use and maintenance, so that does not
sound like an issue. Eventually, we may want full localization with
character sets *and* date/time conventions, and all of this can be
rethought at that time.
> My inclination would actually be to rip out the cache entirely. bsearch
> in a table this size is not so expensive that we need to bypass it, nor
> is it apparent that we are going to see lots of successive lookups for
> the same keyword anyway. How long has that cache been in there, and
> what was the motivation for adding it to begin with?
The cache lookup came from the gods themselves at Berkeley ;)
- Thomas
