[Bro-Dev] would a patch for #981 be accepted?

[David Mandelberg]

On Fri, 2013-04-19 at 12:02 -0700, Robin Sommer wrote:
> Can we change tables so that if &default is a non-constant, the first
> time one accesses a non-existing index, that slot gets assigned a
> deep-copy of the &default value? The downside would be that if
> somebody is relying on the current behaviour, he might access lots of
> non-existing entries with the assumption that the table won't change
> (i.e., he won't run into memory trouble).

What about modifying the table on writes to empty slots but not reads of
empty slots? Is that feasible, or would it require too much code change?


-- 
David Eric Mandelberg / dseomn
http://david.mandelberg.org/
Fri Apr 19 15:11:51 EDT 2013
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/pipermail/bro-dev/attachments/20130419/844e5e4e/attachment.bin