Re: Shared substrings Arthur A. Gleckler 04 May 2000 17:32 UTC
At 09:50 AM 5/4/00 , Tom Lord wrote: > I still don't like the current practice of allowing START and END > parameters to almost every procedures, > >I haven't reread srfi-13 lately, but remember coming to the same conclusion. >I think that srfi-13 is valuable even if the parameters remain, but also >predict that they will eventually cause an alternative, somewhat incompatible >SRFI to be created. > >That's a good thing. SRFI-13 is best existing practice and works today. >No SRFI is the last word on its subject. I have to put a word in in favor of START and END parameters. I want the power that they give me, and I use them all the time in other string packages. Shared substrings are an interesting idea, but they have so many performance consequences, both good and bad, that I don't want to be forced to use them when START and END parameters are all I need. Olin has put in a lot of work on this SRFI and has revised it to accomodate lots of people's comments. If we try to make SRFIs into "diamond-like jewels" like the Scheme standard, there will never be agreement. I would love to see the SRFI finalized so that I can expect to see it in a few Scheme implementations. If an alternative is needed, someone can write another SRFI, as you suggest.