Re: Strings, Was: profile results for new UT_* implementations?

[Aaron Lehmann]

On Tue, Jun 19, 2001 at 11:55:05PM -0400, Dom Lachowicz wrote:
> Regardless of their apparent usefulness, UT_Bytebufs are not strings. They 
> don't look or behave like strings - they represent a block of memory and 
> nothing more.

What makes a string any more than a block of memory, except OO
masochism (Object Obfuscation)?