Timeline for Byte buffer writer
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 11, 2014 at 5:47 | history | edited | Jamal | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 33 characters in body; edited tags; edited title
|
| Jun 16, 2013 at 15:41 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| Jun 16, 2013 at 15:41 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| Jun 16, 2013 at 15:41 | |||||
| Jul 28, 2012 at 12:41 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| Jun 16, 2013 at 15:41 | |||||
| Jul 23, 2012 at 0:46 | answer | added | user15111 | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jul 22, 2012 at 22:35 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackCodeReview/status/227170150728736768 | ||
| Jul 22, 2012 at 5:24 | answer | added | Jesse C. Slicer | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jul 22, 2012 at 0:54 | comment | added | svick | @JeffMercado In some cases, this is exactly what you need to do. For example, when implementing Huffman coding or some other compression algorithm. | |
| Jul 21, 2012 at 22:45 | comment | added | Jeff Mercado |
For what you're doing here, working with data at the bit level is overkill IMHO. The intrinsic type is the byte so you should work at that level at a minimum. You won't gain much in terms of efficiency and maintainability, in fact, it's quite the opposite. You're making it harder on yourself unnecessarily. Besides, that's why there's the BitArray type.
|
|
| Jul 21, 2012 at 21:19 | answer | added | svick | timeline score: 1 | |
| Jul 21, 2012 at 20:35 | history | asked | user15111 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |