[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (n)reverse vs. length
From: |
Dmitry Antipov |
Subject: |
Re: (n)reverse vs. length |
Date: |
Thu, 15 May 2014 08:29:14 +0400 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.5.0 |
On 05/15/2014 05:45 AM, Stefan Monnier wrote:
strings should be immutable
Doesn't aset work on strings?
Yes, I said "should be" not "are".
Hm, what about an existing code which relies on aset'table strings? Questions
like http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2014-04/msg00378.html shows
that treating string as an array of characters is a common practice (which is
"natural" for the people with C background). And, in case of large strings,
in-place reverse may save a lot of memory.
Dmitry