That's great to hear. In that case, I'll just use SubString for now and not open an issue.
Will there be any change to iterators as well? I ask this in part because I was looking into using iterators to strings instead, but I wasn't getting very good performance. On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 10:25:14 AM UTC-4, Stefan Karpinski wrote: > > We're planning a major revamp of string and I/O functionality in 0.4, so > this will all very likely change in the near future. Strings will be much > more lightweight and efficient, and SubStrings will be the same as Strings. > > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Milan Bouchet-Valat <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> Le mercredi 11 juin 2014 à 07:02 -0700, Kevin Squire a écrit : >> >> Actually, Strings are already immutable. Well, mostly. You can't change >> a string directly, but you can (but generally shouldn't) modify the backing >> array. >> >> >> >> Given that, I don't know why indexing couldn't return a substring, >> although there might be reasons--e.g., calling C code is possible with >> ASCIIStrings or UTF8Strings, but SubStrings have to be copied and >> null-terminated (I think this already happens). >> >> Yeah, you are supposed to call bytestring() on strings you pass to C. It >> is a no-op for ASCIIString and UTF8String, but not for SubString, for >> which it creates a copy. >> >> >> Regards >> > >
