From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,8de7eedad50552f1
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsread.com!newsprint.newsread.com!news-feed01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net!nntp.frontiernet.net!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!news-FFM2.ecrc.net!noris.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!news.arcor.de!not-for-mail
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 21:26:38 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <bauhaus@futureapps.de>
Organization: future apps GmbH
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US;
 rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050324 Debian/1.7.6-1
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada bench
References: <ur7ib38sg.fsf@obry.net>
 <pan.2005.03.19.16.57.03.525542@linuxchip.demon.co.uk.uk.uk>
 <1112907561.987114.305060@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
 <uhdihqjmd.fsf@obry.net>
 <1113851668.905224.87270@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
 <1113929009.283051.203460@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
 <1113952942.691069.197890@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
 <u8y3dokdf.fsf@obry.net> <uzmvtoep0.fsf@earthlink.net>
 <ubr894i8x.fsf@obry.net>
In-Reply-To: <ubr894i8x.fsf@obry.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <4266acdf$0$10507$9b4e6d93@newsread4.arcor-online.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 20 Apr 2005 21:26:23 MEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: 4807ee1f.newsread4.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=Qj\g>dO1]j`;XK28C2J>>h:ejgIfPPlddjW\KbG]kaMhliQbn6H@_Ei[A^MO;>XjJgUUng9_FXZ=c>:=P9Ihe`Bh@Z?dZ]MOide
X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:10611
Date: 2005-04-20T21:26:23+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Pascal Obry wrote:
> Matthew Heaney <matthewjheaney@earthlink.net> writes:
> 
> 
>>That was my source for the algorithm (in fact there's a comment to that
>>effect), but it looks like it was changed since I adapted it.
> 
> 
> Yes it has. The rotate of 1 was not good for small strings.

Will it make sense to expressed the shifting amount in terms
of some  'Length dependent constant?

-- Georg