On 02/12/2013 05:25 PM, Christian Tismer wrote:
Ropes have been implemented by Carl-Friedrich Bolz in 2007 as I remember.
No idea what the impact was, if any at all.
Would ropes be an answer (and a simple way to cope with string mutation
patterns) as an alternative implementation, and therefore still justify
the usage of that pattern?
I've always hated the "".join(array) idiom for "fast" string
concatenation--it's ugly and it flies in the face of TOOWTDI. I think
everyone should use "x = a + b + c + d" for string concatenation, and we
should just make that fast.
In 2006 I proposed "lazy string concatenation", a sort of rope that hid
the details inside the string object. If a and b are strings, a+b
returned a string object that internally lazily contained references to
a and b, and only computed its value if you asked for it. Here's the
Unicode version:
http://bugs.python.org/issue1629305
Why didn't it get accepted? I lumped in lazy slicing, a bad move as it
was more controversial. That and the possibility that macros like
PyUnicode_AS_UNICODE could now possibly fail, which would have meant
checking 400+ call sites to ensure they handle the possibility of
failure. This latter work has already happened with the new efficient
Unicode representation patch.
I keep thinking it's time to revive the lazy string concatenation patch.
//arry/
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
