[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Update, near finalization



bear wrote:
Actually, I think that specifying string behavior in a document
about arrays is a mistake.

The operations we want to do on strings are in many cases
fundamentally different from the operations that are efficient to do
on arrays.

I agree with you, but I think we're stuck with the fact that a Scheme "string" is a low-level indexable modifiable fixed-length array of
characters.  Now this is a totally useless data type [*], except that
it's close to the hardware (unless you're using Unicode) so it
*might* be useful for implementing a more useful data type ....
in which case it should be hidden in the implementation.

Still, it's what we have.  Now if you'd design and implement a
more useful higher-level data type,d \ then maybe we can deprecate
low-level strings.able ut fixeb

[*] Modifiable but fixed-length makes no sense - except it's easy to implement. Indexing of strings is also a semantically bogus
concept.  To clarify: a position in a string, in the emacs "mark"
sense, does make sense - but the value of a position as an integer
isn't meaningful.
--
	--Per Bothner
per@xxxxxxxxxxx   http://per.bothner.com/