> I would like to take steps to move to that world post Rust 1.0.
I'd be interested to read more about this, and the reasons why it must be
deferred until after 1.0. Is it just "too much work to do right now", or
does it require some broader ambitious feature (HKT, etc)?
On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Patrick Walton <pcwal...@mozilla.com>wrote:
> On 11/8/13 9:26 AM, spir wrote:
>
>> What are the present implementations of strings and arrays in Rust? And
>> what about fixed size (esp for strings)?
>>
>
> struct RustString {
> int size;
> int cap;
> char ptr[]
> };
>
> typedef *RustString ~str;
>
> (If `~` were a valid identifier character in C, that is.) ;)
>
> But Daniel did some performance measurements and found that this had
> suboptimal performance characteristics when compared to:
>
> struct ~str {
> char *ptr;
> int size;
> int cap;
> }
>
> So we're changing to the latter.
>
> By the way, I agree with Daniel that in an ideal world none of this would
> be baked into the compiler (except syntactically), and I would like to take
> steps to move to that world post Rust 1.0. However, given that we have
> dynamically sized types and as a result we have to define `~str` to mean
> *something*, we have to build in some representation into the compiler.
>
> Patrick
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rust-dev mailing list
> Rust-dev@mozilla.org
> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
>
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
