This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 50 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 50 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
On Tuesday 27 January 2004 09:32 am, bear wrote: > On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Ken Dickey wrote: > >Well color me dumb, but I don't see why getting O(1) is such a big deal. ... > O(1) reference or character setting comes at the expense of O(n) > insertions, deletions, and non-identical-sized replacements. > > EG, if I change "the" to "a" at the beginning of a long string, and > I've represented it as a vector to get O(1) reference time, the rest of > the string has to be copied to move it two character spaces in memory. > > This is no big deal, on the same order as a function call overhead, for > strings of 250 characters or less. But it starts to be a very big deal > when the string is the size of a large novel, around 2 million > characters. Ah, Yes I have seen the Cedar Mesa "ropes" code. I was puzzled by the ropes discussion here because it seemed to be orthogonal to the Unicode discussion. I now see that its because it _is_ orthogonal to the Unicode discussion. Thanks for clearing this up for me, -KenD