At 7:34 AM -0700 7/10/02, John Porter wrote:
>Florian Haeglsperger wrote:
>> But isn't this partly addressed with COW?
>> . . .
>> Thus I don't see a very big performance win in introducing mutable
>> strings.
>
>Good point.
>
>But some people maintain that there could be a need for truly
>"constant" strings, that should never be modified, and any
>attempt to do so, even under COW, should fail.
Right. COW is a performance hack--there's a difference between "I
defer getting a private copy" and "This isn't changeable". It's
reasonably important to have both.
I'm not sure that the place to enforce read-onlyness is at the
string/buffer level. Doing it at the PMC level is more likely the
right place to do it.
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
