Larry Hastings <la...@hastings.org> added the comment: rhettinger: It's a bit unfair to paint the lazy string concatenation patch with the adjective "ropes", then point out ropes have been rejected many times. Lazy string concatenation objects are a form of specialized rope but they don't share the downsides of these other "ropes" proposals.
The major problems with conventional rope implementations are a) slowdown, b) complexity, and c) you must use a new API to interact with them: http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2000-February/002321.html Lazy string concatenation makes Python faster, it isolates its complexity locally inside the string object implementation, and it makes only two changes to the API. Those two changes are: one, you may no longer access the string directly, and two, APIs that returned the internal string (PyString_AsString, PyString_AS_STRING*) may fail in low-memory conditions. You don't need to use a new API to interact with the string; traditional APIs like strchr work fine. * Those were the names in 2.6 anyway. I don't know what the modern names would be in 3.1. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue1569040> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
