Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 8998967
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: June 16, 20262026-06-16T00:06:47+00:00 2026-06-16T00:06:47+00:00

I want to implement a Hash or PHP-like Array. What is better, option a)

  • 0

I want to implement a Hash or PHP-like Array. What is better, option a) or option b) to find a element by its key?

(All variables are set and initialized and so on!)

a)

for( i = 0; i < ary->element_cnt && found == NULL; i++ ) {
    current_element = &(ary->elements[i]);
    if( 0 == memcmp(current_element->key, search_key, keysize) ) {
        found = current_element;
    }
}

b)

for( i = 0, current_element = &(ary->elements[i]) ; 
        i < ary->element_cnt &&  
        0 != memcmp(current_element->key, searchkey, keysize); 
        i++, current_element = &(ary->elements[i]) );
/*found = current_element;*/

Is the first one better because it is much more readable/maintainable? Will the second one be faster?

Is it “bad style” to do everything in one big loop?

I know, there are much better search algos out there, but that’s not my problem here!

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-06-16T00:06:48+00:00Added an answer on June 16, 2026 at 12:06 am

    All matters of style are of course highly subjective. This is the type of thing that is sometimes “regulated” by local code style guides.

    Personally I think the call to memcmp() is a bit too “heavy”, I would write it as:

    for( i = 0; i < ary->element_cnt; ++i ) {
        current_element = &ary->elements[i];
        if( memcmp(current_element->key, search_key, keysize) == 0 )
            break;
    }
    

    This cuts out the found check in the loop header, since that is effectively checking the same thing twice which I dislike.

    If I really wanted to use found, I would write it as:

    for( i = 0; i < ary->element_cnt && !found; ++i ) {
        current_element = &ary->elements[i];
        found = memcmp(current_element->key, search_key, keysize) == 0;
    }
    

    This removes the pointless if and just assigns the Boolean directly which I think is nice.

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Related Questions

I'm trying to implement some data structures (like HAMP-hash array mapped trie) in Common
I want to implement a case insensitive hash map. This question by itself isn't
I'm trying to implement a Chord distributed hash table. I want to use SHA-1
I want to implement a collection (a bit like a map but for single
I want to implement a Hash function that takes a generic and generates a
I would like to use a custom object as a key in a hash-like
I want to implement a fast hash function that will use int datatype and
I want to implement an algorithm that needs to use a hash tree. What
I am trying to implement simple hash map with key - value pair similar
I'm hoping to implement something like all of the great plugins out there for

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.