On Aug 25, 2009, at 5:08 PM, David Rush wrote: > Well actually, after spending some time reading the Stalin source code > (and seeing how well it optimizes this kind of thing), I actually went > back to using lists of characters for a large number of string > algorithms. It really is a very graceful way to handle strings - > substring, insert, and delete all become *very* cheap. It's a paradigm > I'm quite sure that we ought to preserve.
I'm not familiar with the Stalin optimizations you describe, but why is a list of characters preferable to a circular gap buffer? The worst case performance of a gap buffer is much better than that of a linked list of characters. -- Brian Mastenbrook [email protected] http://brian.mastenbrook.net/ _______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
