Re: shared-text substrings
Dan Bornstein
(07 Feb 2000 19:59 UTC)
|
Re: shared-text substrings Mike Wilson (08 Feb 2000 17:34 UTC)
|
Re: shared-text substrings
Shriram Krishnamurthi
(08 Feb 2000 17:46 UTC)
|
Re: shared-text substrings
Per Bothner
(08 Feb 2000 18:06 UTC)
|
Re: shared-text substrings
Shriram Krishnamurthi
(08 Feb 2000 18:16 UTC)
|
Re: shared-text substrings
Per Bothner
(08 Feb 2000 19:11 UTC)
|
Re: shared-text substrings
Shriram Krishnamurthi
(08 Feb 2000 20:41 UTC)
|
Re: shared-text substrings Mike Wilson 08 Feb 2000 17:34 UTC
Dan Bornstein <xxxxxx@milk.com> writes: > I know it's not hard scientific evidence, but at the company I currently > work for, we have a Scheme-based engine generating web pages, which uses > string-append in a fairly naive but straightforward way. It was way too > slow, and that slowness was largely accounted for by time taken up in > string-append. For what it's worth, I have a little Scheme-based html generation program (don't we all :) that suffered from this very problem. I ended up dropping string-append completely. I built a tree of strings, opened output to the target file, and just walked the tree with `display'. Perhaps this is what you meant by implementing string-append/shared at a higher level. That's pretty high, though. Mike -- Mike Wilson xxxxxx@ntrnet.net Debian GNU/Linux! senseitachi wa boku wo fuan ni suru kedo sore hodo taisetsuna kotoba wa nakatta --The Blue Hearts [shounen no shi]