Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp, comp.lang.scheme
From: steph...@wsan03.win.tue.nl (Stephan H.M.J. Houben)
Date: 30 Mar 2002 09:38:30 GMT
Local: Sat, Mar 30 2002 4:38 am
Subject: Re: Back to character set implementation thinking
In article <usn6kh477....@globalgraphics.com>, Pekka P. Pirinen wrote:If you have more than one string type anyway, then you can have
>> Basically then we would have strings which are UCS-4, UCS-2 and
>> Latin-1 restricted (internally, not visibly to users). [...]
>> Procedures like string-set! therefore might have to inflate (and
>> thus copy) the entire string if a value outside the range is stored.
>> But that's ok with me; I don't think it's a serious lose.
>I suppose that is a viable implementation strategy, but I don't think
both directly and indirectly represented strings. It is then
possible to arrange that any directly represented string can
be replaced with an indirectly represented string. Then,
arrange for the garbage collector to remove all indirections.
Again, this is not that more complex once you have decided to
all this adds implementation complexity, but it makes string handling
To go even further: one could provide lazy string copying with
OK, this is really overengineered, but anyway...
>I note that offering multiple string types is exactly what all the CL
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.