[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: strings rationale
From: |
Tom Lord |
Subject: |
Re: strings rationale |
Date: |
Mon, 6 Aug 2001 14:24:03 -0700 (PDT) |
The inconvenience [of read-only-string?] is in the need to use
those predicates. If strings can be shared, you need to check
for this before modifying them.
Please explain more carefully what you mean by this cryptic comment.
It makes no sense to me. You write as if confused.
Where do you find the use of `read-only-string?' inconvenient?
What have shared substrings got to do with whether or not
`read-only-string?' must be used?
a simpler, uniform string representation seems better
What does "simpler, uniform string representation" mean in this
context, specifically.
-t
- strings rationale, Tom Lord, 2001/08/06
- Re: strings rationale, Neil Jerram, 2001/08/06
- Re: strings rationale, Alex Shinn, 2001/08/06
- Re: strings rationale,
Tom Lord <=
- Re: strings rationale, Alex Shinn, 2001/08/06
- Re: strings rationale, Tom Lord, 2001/08/06
- Re: strings rationale, Eric E Moore, 2001/08/06
- making up language features, Tom Lord, 2001/08/06
- Message not available
- apologies, Tom Lord, 2001/08/06
- Re: apologies, Neil Jerram, 2001/08/11
- Re: making up language features, Sam Tregar, 2001/08/06
- Re: making up language features, Tom Lord, 2001/08/06
- Re: making up language features, Sam Tregar, 2001/08/06
- Re: making up language features, Klaus Schilling, 2001/08/07