Re: Sting abstraction 2

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hello!

Mike Gran <address@hidden> writes:

> Anyway, I backtracked a bit.  Today I pushed a new tree
> (string_abstraction2) which should be the same as master except with all
> unnecessary calls to scm_i_string_chars, scm_i_symbol_chars, and
> scm_i_string_writable_chars removed.  I largely avoided other
> unnecessary modifications.  It is still an 8-bit string build, but, now
> the string internals have been confined to strings.c and strports.c,
> with very few exceptions.

How does it differ from the approach you took a while back (e.g.,
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel/8436)?

(The commit notification message is hard to follow because it contains
many commits in addition to the relevant ones.)

Thanks,
Ludo'.