[sword-devel] Shorter book name abbreviations
chrislit at crosswire.org
Sun Sep 19 13:03:00 MST 2010
On 9/19/2010 7:55 AM, Jonathan Morgan wrote:
> I was talking about interpretation, not presentation (and so I think was
> the user, given they were talking about minimising the amount they have
> to type). I agree that the short name presentation is fine as it is.
> Do you know of any harm caused by adding additional interpretations?
Ah, sorry for my misunderstanding. In that case, adding new
abbreviations isn't particularly bad. It will increase the average
processing time for every book name lookup, but not drastically. (Our
book lookup search uses a binary search algorithm, so it's O(log n).
Adding more abbreviations increases n.)
If there are actually any reasonable 2-letter abbreviations that aren't
already covered by the lookup algorithm, we should add them. But it
should be confirmed that they won't already point to the expected book
value. I have a feeling there's already a bit of unnecessary data in the
book abbreviations array. (E.g., if we had both "PS" and "PSA"
indicating Psalms, the latter probably wouldn't be necessary in the
array, since the binary search picks "PS" in the absence of "PSA" if you
try to look up "PSA", if my recollection is correct.)
So... more abbreviations wouldn't be bad, but let's be certain that they
More information about the sword-devel