On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:43 AM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
> Alex Shinn scripsit:
>
>> It has insertion, replacement and deletion operations.
>> These return new objects, but that doesn't have to be
>> any less efficient than an explicitly mutable API.
>
> I already made that point: immutable string APIs are sufficient.  But if
> you *want* a truly imperative, not functional, string API, then a buffer
> gap is your friend.

And my point is that you can have a mutable API without
exposing the implementation - especially a bad choice of
implementation.

--
Alex

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