Per Bothner scripsit: > In other words: mutable fixed-length strings are effectively useless, > but we have to have mutable strings.
I am far from convinced of that. I think the arguments for providing mutable strings only (simplicity, thread safety, sharability, memory efficiency, no ownership issues, no copying) are quite convincing, and I favored that position, but I couldn't get enough support in WG1 to remove them from the language, since they are an IEEE feature. (Just putting them in a separate module, especially a mandatory module as is done in R6RS, doesn't really help implementers or users.) > That just requires adding a few functions like string-replace-substring > to make mutable strings into something actually usable. The normal > implementation could be a simple buffer-gap. I'd be happy to have a buffer-gap package in R7RS-large. I've added it to the RevoteDocket (somewhat paradoxically named; it is really the "input hopper" for new ideas). > Is there an prior art for doing anything like that? Emacs buffers is the obvious prior art. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [email protected] Be yourself. Especially do not feign a working knowledge of RDF where no such knowledge exists. Neither be cynical about RELAX NG; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment in the world of markup, James Clark is as perennial as the grass. --DeXiderata, Sean McGrath _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
