about 1. if that's meant to be portable, yes, not the best indeed, but if you look at c.c.string/* or even c.c/str, most of the functions use stringbuilder I think. about 2. probably slower than subs, these are just alternatives to what you suggested
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 1:06:40 PM UTC+2, Andy Smith wrote: > > the first isnt pure clojure wo I would probably try to avoid this... e.g. > what if I want to port to clojureCLR? > > The second 'looks' quite a roundabout way of simply manipulating a string? > > How would the following compare for performance? > > (defn replace-substring [s r start len] (str (subs s 0 start) r (subs s (+ > len start)))) > > If there is nothing better then I wonder why there isn't something like > this in the clojure standard libraries (must be a good reason I suppose)? > Its a fairly standard function for a string library isnt it? > > Andy > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
