I'd be a lot more comfortable if the run-time system and compiler (and
everything else needed for cross-compilation -- SF, *parser, c.)
didn't exhibit this subtle issue. In any case, I thought the point of
STRING-HEAD! was to reduce pressure on the garbage collector, not to
reduce the time spent
That case isn't such a big deal, but the general string-accumulator
pattern gets used in a bunch of places where the overhead is very low,
such as in utf-8 conversion. I'd like to be able to use string-head!
there too.
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Joe Marshall jmarsh...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:48:34 -0700
From: Joe Marshall jmarsh...@alum.mit.edu
Has anyone measured the performance difference between smashing
the string head and just taking a substring? I'd bet it's a pretty minimal
improvement against the background of the other things that
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Taylor R Campbell campb...@mumble.net wrote:
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:48:34 -0700
From: Joe Marshall jmarsh...@alum.mit.edu
Has anyone measured the performance difference between smashing
the string head and just taking a substring? I'd bet it's a
