On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Per Bothner <per@bothner.com> wrote:
>
> Certainly if there is lots of random-access insertion and deletion.
> But for a simple low-overhead mutable string buffer (just plain
> text with no styling, no emacs-style positions, etc) it seems a reasonable
> choice.  I'm thinking of something similar to Java's
> StringBuilder/StringBuffer
> (which don't even use a buffer gap).  Most common uses just append to the
> end (which is why even buffer-gap may be overkill), but occasionally
> people do an insert/replace/delete.

Then why not specify a generic text buffer API instead
of requiring a specific implementation?

A good start can be found at:

http://mumble.net/~campbell/proposals/new-text.txt

--
Alex

_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@scheme-reports.org
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports