[Scheme-reports] fresh empty strings
Andy Wingo
(20 Jan 2012 21:35 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] fresh empty strings
Andy Wingo
(20 Jan 2012 22:03 UTC)
|
Re: fresh empty strings
Arthur A. Gleckler
(20 Jan 2012 22:55 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] fresh empty strings
John Cowan
(21 Jan 2012 03:36 UTC)
|
Re: fresh empty strings
Arthur A. Gleckler
(21 Jan 2012 06:56 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] fresh empty strings
Andy Wingo
(21 Jan 2012 13:24 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] fresh empty strings
John Cowan
(21 Jan 2012 13:34 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] fresh empty strings Andy Wingo (21 Jan 2012 13:47 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] fresh empty strings
John Cowan
(21 Jan 2012 14:38 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] fresh empty strings
Aubrey Jaffer
(21 Jan 2012 18:31 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] fresh empty strings
John Cowan
(21 Jan 2012 19:04 UTC)
|
Re: [Scheme-reports] fresh empty strings
Ray Dillinger
(21 Jan 2012 17:05 UTC)
|
On Sat 21 Jan 2012 14:34, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> writes: > Andy Wingo scripsit: > >> Whenever this report speaks of storage being allocated for a >> variable or object, what is meant is that an appropriate number of >> locations are chosen from the set of locations that are not in use, >> and the chosen locations are marked to indicate that they are now in >> use before the variable or object is made to denote them. >> >> Seems to imply that (eq? (string) (string)) => #f. > > However, an empty string doesn't actually have any locations, so the > above procedure is vacuous. (Same for the other empties.) This leaves > an implementation free to do whatever it likes. An empty string (vector, bytevector, etc) does not have any locations for the characters, but it does have a location for the length. Andy -- http://wingolog.org/