strings draft Tom Lord (22 Jan 2004 04:58 UTC)
Re: strings draft Shiro Kawai (22 Jan 2004 09:46 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (22 Jan 2004 17:32 UTC)
Re: strings draft Shiro Kawai (23 Jan 2004 05:03 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (24 Jan 2004 00:31 UTC)
Re: strings draft Matthew Dempsky (24 Jan 2004 03:00 UTC)
Re: strings draft Shiro Kawai (24 Jan 2004 03:27 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (24 Jan 2004 04:18 UTC)
Re: strings draft Shiro Kawai (24 Jan 2004 04:49 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (24 Jan 2004 18:47 UTC)
Re: strings draft Shiro Kawai (24 Jan 2004 22:16 UTC)
Octet vs Char (Re: strings draft) Shiro Kawai (26 Jan 2004 09:58 UTC)
Re: Octet vs Char (Re: strings draft) bear (26 Jan 2004 19:04 UTC)
Re: Octet vs Char (Re: strings draft) Matthew Dempsky (26 Jan 2004 20:12 UTC)
Re: Octet vs Char (Re: strings draft) Matthew Dempsky (26 Jan 2004 20:40 UTC)
Re: Octet vs Char Shiro Kawai (26 Jan 2004 23:39 UTC)
Strings, one last detail. bear (30 Jan 2004 21:12 UTC)
Re: Strings, one last detail. Shiro Kawai (30 Jan 2004 21:43 UTC)
Re: Strings, one last detail. Tom Lord (31 Jan 2004 00:13 UTC)
Re: Strings, one last detail. bear (31 Jan 2004 20:26 UTC)
Re: Strings, one last detail. Tom Lord (31 Jan 2004 20:42 UTC)
Re: Strings, one last detail. bear (01 Feb 2004 02:29 UTC)
Re: Strings, one last detail. Tom Lord (01 Feb 2004 02:44 UTC)
Re: Strings, one last detail. bear (01 Feb 2004 07:53 UTC)
Re: Octet vs Char (Re: strings draft) Ken Dickey (27 Jan 2004 04:33 UTC)
Re: Octet vs Char Shiro Kawai (27 Jan 2004 05:12 UTC)
Re: Octet vs Char Tom Lord (27 Jan 2004 05:23 UTC)
Re: Octet vs Char bear (27 Jan 2004 08:35 UTC)
Re: Octet vs Char (Re: strings draft) bear (27 Jan 2004 08:33 UTC)
Re: Octet vs Char (Re: strings draft) Ken Dickey (27 Jan 2004 15:43 UTC)
Re: Octet vs Char (Re: strings draft) bear (27 Jan 2004 19:06 UTC)
Re: strings draft bear (22 Jan 2004 19:05 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (23 Jan 2004 01:53 UTC)
READ-OCTET (Re: strings draft) Shiro Kawai (23 Jan 2004 06:01 UTC)
Re: strings draft bear (23 Jan 2004 07:04 UTC)
Re: strings draft bear (23 Jan 2004 07:20 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (24 Jan 2004 00:02 UTC)
Re: strings draft Alex Shinn (26 Jan 2004 01:59 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (26 Jan 2004 02:22 UTC)
Re: strings draft bear (26 Jan 2004 02:35 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (26 Jan 2004 02:48 UTC)
Re: strings draft Alex Shinn (26 Jan 2004 03:00 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (26 Jan 2004 03:14 UTC)
Re: strings draft Shiro Kawai (26 Jan 2004 04:57 UTC)
Re: strings draft Alex Shinn (26 Jan 2004 04:58 UTC)
Re: strings draft tb@xxxxxx (23 Jan 2004 18:48 UTC)
Re: strings draft bear (24 Jan 2004 02:21 UTC)
Re: strings draft tb@xxxxxx (23 Jan 2004 02:10 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (23 Jan 2004 02:29 UTC)
Re: strings draft tb@xxxxxx (23 Jan 2004 02:44 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (23 Jan 2004 02:53 UTC)
Re: strings draft tb@xxxxxx (23 Jan 2004 03:04 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (23 Jan 2004 03:16 UTC)
Re: strings draft tb@xxxxxx (23 Jan 2004 03:42 UTC)
Re: strings draft Alex Shinn (23 Jan 2004 02:35 UTC)
Re: strings draft tb@xxxxxx (23 Jan 2004 02:42 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (23 Jan 2004 02:49 UTC)
Re: strings draft Alex Shinn (23 Jan 2004 02:58 UTC)
Re: strings draft tb@xxxxxx (23 Jan 2004 03:13 UTC)
Re: strings draft Alex Shinn (23 Jan 2004 03:19 UTC)
Re: strings draft Bradd W. Szonye (23 Jan 2004 19:31 UTC)
Re: strings draft Alex Shinn (26 Jan 2004 02:22 UTC)
Re: strings draft Bradd W. Szonye (06 Feb 2004 23:30 UTC)
Re: strings draft Bradd W. Szonye (06 Feb 2004 23:33 UTC)
Re: strings draft Alex Shinn (09 Feb 2004 01:45 UTC)
specifying source encoding (Re: strings draft) Shiro Kawai (09 Feb 2004 02:51 UTC)
Re: strings draft Bradd W. Szonye (09 Feb 2004 03:39 UTC)
Re: strings draft tb@xxxxxx (23 Jan 2004 03:12 UTC)
Re: strings draft Alex Shinn (23 Jan 2004 03:28 UTC)
Re: strings draft tb@xxxxxx (23 Jan 2004 03:44 UTC)
Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Ken Dickey (23 Jan 2004 17:02 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] bear (23 Jan 2004 17:56 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] tb@xxxxxx (23 Jan 2004 18:50 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Per Bothner (23 Jan 2004 18:56 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Tom Lord (23 Jan 2004 20:26 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Per Bothner (23 Jan 2004 20:57 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Tom Lord (23 Jan 2004 21:44 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Tom Lord (23 Jan 2004 20:07 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] tb@xxxxxx (23 Jan 2004 21:22 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Tom Lord (23 Jan 2004 22:38 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] tb@xxxxxx (24 Jan 2004 06:48 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Tom Lord (24 Jan 2004 18:41 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] tb@xxxxxx (24 Jan 2004 19:34 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Tom Lord (24 Jan 2004 21:48 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Ken Dickey (23 Jan 2004 21:47 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Tom Lord (23 Jan 2004 23:22 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Ken Dickey (25 Jan 2004 01:03 UTC)
Re: Parsing Scheme [was Re: strings draft] Tom Lord (25 Jan 2004 03:01 UTC)
Re: strings draft Matthew Dempsky (25 Jan 2004 06:59 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (25 Jan 2004 07:16 UTC)
Re: strings draft Matthew Dempsky (26 Jan 2004 23:52 UTC)
Re: strings draft Tom Lord (27 Jan 2004 00:30 UTC)

Re: strings draft Alex Shinn 26 Jan 2004 04:57 UTC

At Sun, 25 Jan 2004 19:27:58 -0800 (PST), Tom Lord wrote:
>
> So far as I know, the details I've heard about Bear's are such that I
> would consider it to conform to the guidance.

But it's not.  Binary trees are O(log(n)), period.  Bear's intended use
cases may often involve shallow trees, but that's not to say they always
will be, or that other people won't write applications that fragment the
tree.  You can keep a tree balanced, but you *can't* keep it constantly
shallow.  An algorithm that assumes O(1) access in such cases will
perform poorly.

> I'm not aware enough about the details of Shiro's.  All I'm (sort of)
> aware of is that he's dealing with a EUCJP -- which sounds very
> challenging if you want to wind up with an implementation suitable for
> intensive string processing.   (Unicode is similarly challenging.)

Gauche can be compiled with EUCJP, SJIS or UTF-8 (and extended to others
with minimal effort).  UTF-8 is especially useful these days as the
standard for exchange on the net and is being used in more and more C
libraries, which is especially relevant in the context of this SRFI.
Even without a flat UTF-8 representation, hybrid representations such as
trees of UTF-8 chords are very tempting.

This is not to say we should encourage UTF-8 either, but I think it is
wrong to discourage implementations that use it or binary trees.

--
Alex