>>>>> "vQ" == Wacek Kusnierczyk <waclaw.marcin.kusnierc...@idi.ntnu.no>
>>>>> on Mon, 27 Apr 2009 21:25:06 +0200 writes:
vQ> Gabor Grothendieck wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 6:45 AM,
>> <maech...@stat.math.ethz.ch> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, the documentation will also have to be amended, but
>>> apart from that, would people see a big problem with the
>>> "8192" limit which now is suddenly of greater importance
>>> {{as I said all along; hence my question to Wacek (and
>>> the R-develers) if anybody found that limit too low}}
>>>
>>
> I haven't been following all this but in working with strings
>> for the gsubfn package my own usage of the package was
>> primarily for small strings but then I discovered that
>> others wanted to use it for much larger strings of 25,000
>> characters, say, and it was necessary to raise the limits
>> (and there are also performance implications which could
>> be addressed too). I don't know what the situation is
>> particularly here but cases where very large strings can
>> be used include linguistic analysis and computer
>> generated R code.
>>
vQ> in principle, instead of the quite arbitrary and not
vQ> justified constant vQ> size limit 8192 [1], one could
vQ> use dynamic arrays. this would allow strings of
vQ> arbitrary length without adding much performance penalty
vQ> for strings shorter than 8193 bytes.
vQ> [1] src/include/Defn.h:60
Yes, in principle that would be clearly better.
well-tested ('make check-all') patches are welcome!
Martin
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
