> Given the following 2 statements:
>
> Statement using sscanf()
> ========================
>     mpArray = allocate(2);
>     sscanf("test 9", "%s %d", mpArray[0], mpArray[1]);
>
> Statement using parse_string()
> ==============================
>     mpArray = parse_string("   \
>         whitespace = / /       \
>         word = /[a-z]+/        \
>         number = /[0-9]+/      \
>                                \
>         Sentence: word number ? to_number", "test 9");
>
>     mixed *to_number(mixed *mpTree)
>     {
>         return ({ mpTree[0], (int) mpTree[1] });
>     }

The sscanf() is far more efficient.  The parse_string() version has to:
 - parse the grammar
 - build a partial DFA for the regular expressions
 - build a partial shift/reduce parser for the grammar
 - parse the the string according to the grammar

Each of these steps will take longer than the sscanf().  If the
parse_string() is performed repeatedly with the same grammar in the same
object, and no parse_string() call was made in the same object with a
different grammar in the meantime, then the first 3 steps will be omitted;
for this particular case, parse_string() is still slowest.  It gets more
relatively efficient the more complex the grammar gets, the more often it
is called (because of the building overhead), and the longer the string to
parse is.

Note however, the sscanf() and the parse_string() version do not do
exactly the same thing: the parse_string() version will skip an arbitrary
number of spaces.  Doing this without parse_string() is quite likely
to be more expensive than with.

Finally, the quoted grammar would be faster if whitespace is defined
as / +/ rather than / /; that way, the number of individual tokens is
reduced if the string to be parsed contains consecutive spaces.

Regards,
Dworkin