I wonder why you didn't consider the cost of substring (given
that the start and end point can be provided in a way that
implementation can find them most efficiently). Maybe it's
a matter of style, though I use substring (both explicitly and
implicitly) all the time while hardly use string mutation.
--shiro
From: William D Clinger <will at ccs.neu.edu>
Subject: Re: [r6rs-discuss] Unicode issues
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:43:52 -0400
> Jason Orendorff wrote:
> > The page you linked earlier proposes 7 different string
> > representations. They have radically different best-case,
> > expected-case, and worst-case performance. End users are left with no
> > idea what to expect. R6RS strings are a grimacing caricature of an
> > abstraction.
>
> That's true only if you consider utf8 and utf16
> to be viable representations for Scheme strings.
> I don't. The five viable representations have
> extremely similar best-case, expected-case, and
> worst-case performance with respect to amortized
> time, and their space efficiency is always the
> same to within a factor of 4.
>
> A survey of existing implementations would find
> much larger variations (in both space and time)
> for Scheme's most important data type: procedures.
>
> Will
>
> _______________________________________________
> r6rs-discuss mailing list
> r6rs-discuss at lists.r6rs.org
> http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
>
Received on Wed Aug 29 2007 - 16:10:27 UTC