[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Scheme-reports] mutable unicode strings
- To: Per Bothner <per@x>
- Subject: Re: [Scheme-reports] mutable unicode strings
- From: Bear <bear@x>
- Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2014 19:16:56 -0700
- Cc: scheme-reports <scheme-reports@x>
- In-reply-to: <53B41F6A.3010608@bothner.com>
- References: <53B3278C.6030606@bothner.com> <CAHwMy190CD9D+W6Yo_tEP1JZXsK5sWuDnLmz4Va0wVNxSnPS9w@mail.gmail.com> <53B38D37.40803@bothner.com> <CALEAhfCz67BtS+he6SFohzMhXGC6Ybao8t1GzgUJqxGgv942Zg@mail.gmail.com> <53B41F6A.3010608@bothner.com>
On Wed, 2014-07-02 at 08:04 -0700, 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.
Are there any extant examples of 3-byte code units in strings?
I would find that - interesting.
Bear
_______________________________________________
Scheme-reports mailing list
Scheme-reports@x
http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports