When someone makes a post demonstrating a complete failure to consider an argument before making it (claiming that a substring search requires allocation of any kind when all it does is scan and return an offset...) I don't think it's necessary for me to explain in elaborate detail why they're wrong.
I don't need to explain how I'd implement it because every obvious implementation of the strstr algorithm doesn't need to allocate because it's a substring search! Search operations are pure and don't mutate!
Every single implementation of strstr or equivalent in every single programming language I have ever seen does not require an allocation. It either returns a pointer to the location of the first matched result, or returns the character index of the first match. That's it.
Any other absurd implementation you can think up to justify null-terminated strings - like returning a copy of the string with a null terminator after the match - just doesn't make any sense. That's a different operation.
Comments
When someone makes a post demonstrating a complete failure to consider an argument before making it (claiming that a substring search requires allocation of any kind when all it does is scan and return an offset...) I don't think it's necessary for me to explain in elaborate detail why they're wrong.
I don't need to explain how I'd implement it because every obvious implementation of the strstr algorithm doesn't need to allocate because it's a substring search! Search operations are pure and don't mutate!
Every single implementation of strstr or equivalent in every single programming language I have ever seen does not require an allocation. It either returns a pointer to the location of the first matched result, or returns the character index of the first match. That's it.
Any other absurd implementation you can think up to justify null-terminated strings - like returning a copy of the string with a null terminator after the match - just doesn't make any sense. That's a different operation.