Hi, I have already thought and tried the seek function (there are faster way for long strings) and in that case I do not mind "patching" in lisp because the lisp version can be made more useful, providing the position of the substring.
So far I have done all string processing in picolisp with lists of transient symbols, each representing one char. For difficult problems, like finding the end of a sentence, the list structure is great and the property list allows to pass information around. On the 32bits version, this has seemed reasonable, but on a 64bits one? Any thought will be welcome. Thanks for the information, Denis From: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org> on behalf of Alexander Burger <a...@software-lab.de> Sent: August 21, 2017 2:25 AM To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Missing functions in miniPicolisp? Hi Denis, > So, if miniPicolisp should be a "real" project, would sub? (and any other > "missing" functions) be available in it sooner or later? pre? is available, so > is there any reason why sub? and hash are not found? I might try it myself, > but I think the reason is the bit-packed format of the string representation in miniPicoLisp. This makes it quite tedious to scan the bytes for a substring. > it would take the time of my understanding of the source code ;-) Perhaps this is not necessary so much. It is quite straightforward, for example, to build 'sub?' in Lisp: (de sub? (A Str) (setq A (chop A)) (and (seek '((L) (head A L)) (chop Str)) Str ) ) > Has the RAM/ROM trick an impact on performance when miniPicolisp is used on a > regular computer (for command line application or embedded in a larger > application?) No, it might even be an advantage, as it should start up slightly faster. In reality, the difference is not noticeable though. ♪♫ Alex -- UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=Unsubscribe PԔ � &j)m����X�����zV�u�.n7�