Browse thread
Not really a bug but...
-
Jon Harrop
-
Alain Frisch
- Christophe TROESTLER
-
Loup Vaillant
- Richard Jones
- skaller
-
Alain Frisch
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Richard Jones <rich@a...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Not really a bug but... |
On Sat, Jun 16, 2007 at 12:10:35PM +0200, Loup Vaillant wrote: > 2007/6/16, Alain Frisch <Alain.Frisch@inria.fr>: > >Jon Harrop wrote: > >> Any chance of changing the semantics of string literals so they aren't > >static? > >[...] > >If it were done automatically, there would be a penalty for > >the common case of immutable strings; to avoid it, you'd need to lift > >constant literals out of abstractions, which is not very nice. > > By the way, why Ocaml didn't take the Java path, i.e. making truly > immutable strings, And provide mutable string buffers as well? Any > chance of seing someone exploring that path? (Some usefull features > would then be fast consing and catenation, and some easier string > sharing). Mutable strings are useful! - I can use them as bitfields, general data areas (for ioctl, mlock), etc See: http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/hvcalls/ Rich. -- Richard Jones Red Hat