Scheme language standardization process
On 01/24/2012 07:26 PM, Alex Shinn wrote: > On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 11:43 AM, John Cowan<cowan@x> wrote: >> Alex Shinn scripsit: >> >>> It has insertion, replacement and deletion operations. >>> These return new objects, but that doesn't have to be >>> any less efficient than an explicitly mutable API. >> >> I already made that point: immutable string APIs are sufficient. But if >> you *want* a truly imperative, not functional, string API, then a buffer >> gap is your friend. > > And my point is that you can have a mutable API without > exposing the implementation Of course - but if you don't have an implementation in mind when you design the API then you're just blowing hot air. A variable-length-string API as we're talking about would not "expose" the implementation - but the reference implementation would use a specific implementation. Also any notes in the specification about performance expectations would be based on possible implementations that the API writer(s) have considered. For example the text implementation you linked to has an obvious simple implementation that was clearly considered when designing the api. And adding mutable procedures like you proposed breaks that simple implementation and/or would require wholsesale changes to the API: for example the performance characteristics, when positions are valid, etc. > - especially a bad choice of implementation. I'm still awaiting for a better one. -- --Per Bothner per@x http://per.bothner.com/ _______________________________________________ Scheme-reports mailing list Scheme-reports@x http://lists.scheme-reports.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/scheme-reports