On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 10:52:17AM -0500, Sergio Gómez Del Real wrote:
I'm not really sure what assumptions I can make to avoid an o(n.m), since both of the strings can be presented with characters in any (pre)composed form... I don't know if the trouble trying to find a way to upper-bound the search with a length (3x? 5x?) would be worth considering that it seems to be the normal case that we don't get too long strings to compare, and relatively little use of the function itself. Would brute-force o(n.m) be too bad?
Just send in v2 of the patch with the changes I suggested. Normalization needs to be implemented before we need to worry about any of this.
Huw.