Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 16:29:27 -0700 From: Joe Marshall <[email protected]>
I assumed that SET-STRING-MAXIMUM-LENGTH! was called for efficiency reasons, otherwise SUBSTRING would work just fine. I imagine that the time to set a string's maximum length and then read it is negligible; what's important is the time to copy a string large, and the pressure it puts on the garbage collector. As an aside, I just noticed that STRING-MAXIMUM-LENGTH and SET-STRING-MAXIMUM-LENGTH! are not open-coded. Is there a reason for this, beyond just that nobody wrote open-coders for them? _______________________________________________ MIT-Scheme-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/mit-scheme-devel
