I wonder why you didn't consider the cost of substring (given that the start and end point can be provided in a way that implementation can find them most efficiently). Maybe it's a matter of style, though I use substring (both explicitly and implicitly) all the time while hardly use string mutation.
--shiro From: William D Clinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [r6rs-discuss] Unicode issues Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2007 14:43:52 -0400 > 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 > _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
