Shared substrings
d96-mst-ingen-reklam@xxxxxx
(03 May 2000 21:34 UTC)
|
Re: Shared substrings
erik hilsdale
(04 May 2000 15:53 UTC)
|
Re: Shared substrings d96-mst-ingen-reklam@xxxxxx (07 May 2000 09:39 UTC)
|
Re: Shared substrings
shivers@xxxxxx
(07 May 2000 21:24 UTC)
|
Re: Shared substrings
Tom Lord
(04 May 2000 16:51 UTC)
|
Re: Shared substrings
Arthur A. Gleckler
(04 May 2000 17:32 UTC)
|
Re: Shared substrings d96-mst-ingen-reklam@xxxxxx 06 May 2000 23:45 UTC
In article <lhug0ryz4z1xxxxxx@gont.parc.xerox.com>, erik hilsdale <xxxxxx@cs.indiana.edu> wrote: >I wish that I could treat the three elements of a substring as one >argument and yet be guaranteed it would be passed in three >registers/framelocs/whatever in the common non-heap-allocated case. >That is, I wish Scheme had/required ML's tuple unpacking. It (the >language, and all implementations of it that I'm aware of) doesn't and >it (the language) never will. > >But I sometimes need the speed that such unpacking would give me. This is silly. If you really need the extra speed, then use a Scheme implementation with shared substrings, or another language (such as C). > ms> However, I have a compromise idea. Instead of the optional START > ms> and END parameters, allow using a list '(s start end) instead of > ms> the string parameter. > >I'm not sure I understand how this is a win over the optional >start/end parameters, The advantage is that you can store the string with the indices as one (conceptual) unit, thus making the program code easier to maintain and less error-prone. Please don't destroy the nice high-level Scheme language with these exaggerated low-level optimazion efforts. --- /****************************************************************\ * You have just read a message from Mikael Ståldal. * * * * Remove "-ingen-reklam" from the address before mail replying. * \****************************************************************/