On Fri 13 Jan 2012 17:39, Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org writes:
Should we defend the legitimacy of this optimization, and ask the R7RS
working group to include explicit language specifying that empty
strings/vectors need not be freshly allocated?
It's a worthwhile question IMO. I'll mail
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 13-01-12 17:39, Mark H Weaver wrote:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
However, my mind is not set in stone on this. Does anyone else
here agree with David? Should we defend the legitimacy of this
optimization, and ask the R7RS working
Marijn hk...@gentoo.org writes:
On 13-01-12 17:39, Mark H Weaver wrote:
David Kastrup d...@gnu.org writes:
However, my mind is not set in stone on this. Does anyone else
here agree with David? Should we defend the legitimacy of this
optimization, and ask the R7RS working group to include
Hi Mark,
Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org skribis:
What do other people think?
As you said, R5RS makes it clear that there can be several (in the sense
of eq?) empty strings, so I think what you did is the right thing.
Thanks!
Ludo’.
Hello Mark!
Mark H Weaver m...@netris.org skribis:
I wrote:
3. Make scm_nullstr into a mutable string. After all, it can't be
changed anyway, and the _only_ reference to it is from
scm_from_stringn, so the result should always be mutable.
For the record: my statement above was in
objects can make this string different from what it is.
And since there is no way to share the empty contents of an empty string
with other strings, this is true even if every empty string is eq? to
every other one.
--
David Kastrup
