Mike Gran <spk...@yahoo.com> writes: >> `define' merely makes a new reference to an existing object. If you >> want a copy, you must explicitly ask for one (though this could be >> hidden by custom syntax). It would not be desirable for the language to >> make copies automatically as part of the core `define' syntax. For one >> thing, sometimes you don't want a copy. Sometimes you want shared >> mutable objects. > > It is curious that action of 'copy' really means the > action of 'create a copy with different properties'. > > Shouldn't (string-copy "a") create another immutable string?
That would be rather pointless. You could just use the original string. > Likewise, shouldn't (substring "abc" 1) return an immutable substring? Why wouldn't you be using substring/shared if you are not going to modify either string? -- David Kastrup
