On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 3:49 PM, Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll <
juanjose.garciarip...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 12:37 AM, Raymond Toy <toy.raym...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> (I was surprised to see ecl choose the smallest string type to fit a
>> literal string.)
>>
>
> Why? I mean, an ordinary unicode string without utf-8 packing takes 4
> times the room of a base string. Since ECL is using a string buffer to read
> objects, then why shouldn't it pack them to the smallest representation
> when possible?
>
I was surprised for several reasons:
1. You have to check after reading the string to see what it contains. (I
guess a very small compile-time cost.)
2. Because I didn't think any lisp did that, but it's not illegal to do so.
3. It's a burden on the user if the type of a constant string depends on
what's in it. Being illiterate, I only know ASCII, so, perhaps this isn't
a problem in practice.
(Getting crufty old f2cl code to convert declarations like (simple-array
character (*)) to just string is a pain, but that's my problem, not yours.)
Ray
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Try before you buy = See our experts in action!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2
_______________________________________________
Ecls-list mailing list
Ecls-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ecls-list
