Jason Orendorff wrote: > The page you linked earlier proposes 7 different string > representations. They have radically different best-case, > expected-case, and worst-case performance. End users are left with no > idea what to expect. R6RS strings are a grimacing caricature of an > abstraction.
That's true only if you consider utf8 and utf16 to be viable representations for Scheme strings. I don't. The five viable representations have extremely similar best-case, expected-case, and worst-case performance with respect to amortized time, and their space efficiency is always the same to within a factor of 4. A survey of existing implementations would find much larger variations (in both space and time) for Scheme's most important data type: procedures. Will _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
