On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Per Bothner <[email protected]> wrote: > > Certainly if there is lots of random-access insertion and deletion. > But for a simple low-overhead mutable string buffer (just plain > text with no styling, no emacs-style positions, etc) it seems a reasonable > choice. I'm thinking of something similar to Java's > StringBuilder/StringBuffer > (which don't even use a buffer gap). Most common uses just append to the > end (which is why even buffer-gap may be overkill), but occasionally > people do an insert/replace/delete.
Then why not specify a generic text buffer API instead of requiring a specific implementation? A good start can be found at: http://mumble.net/~campbell/proposals/new-text.txt -- Alex _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports
