Re: [Scheme-reports] mutable unicode strings Per Bothner (02 Jul 2014 04:45 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] mutable unicode strings Michael Montague (02 Jul 2014 14:10 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] mutable unicode strings Per Bothner (02 Jul 2014 15:10 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] mutable unicode strings Alaric Snell-Pym (02 Jul 2014 15:21 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] mutable unicode strings Bear (03 Jul 2014 02:21 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] mutable unicode strings Per Bothner (03 Jul 2014 02:35 UTC)
Re: [Scheme-reports] mutable unicode strings Sam Tobin-Hochstadt (03 Jul 2014 13:01 UTC)

Re: [Scheme-reports] mutable unicode strings Alaric Snell-Pym 02 Jul 2014 15:16 UTC
On 02/07/14 16:04, Per Bothner wrote:
>
> In other words: Supporting string-replace! has no extra overheads beyond
> requiring an "indirect" representation.  The latter is forced anyway if
> you support mutability and full Unicode, unless you use 3- or 4-byte characters.
> Even if you do use 3- or 4-byte characters, indirection is worth it, because
> mutable fixed-size strings is an essentially-useless feature.
>

Also, said indirection may be bent to support an efficient substring
operation, by sharing a common character array (although you may well
regret also allowing mutation in that case...)

ABS

--
Alaric Snell-Pym
http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/

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