Well,


I didn't say the buffer library is slow.
I said, it's much faster than using "^".

For not-that-intensive string-concat's,
2^" is fast enough, but when you do often
concat strings, then buffer-module is
faster.

Do you mean the buffer module should be made better or do you think,
the "^" operator should be implemented differently?
If Buffer-module might be even faster, when it's changed,
that's fine, but IMHO it's quite fast.

Ciao,
   Oliver

Zitat von David Teller <David.Teller@univ-orleans.fr>:

> A possible improvement of the buffer library (along with a ropes
> library) may be a good future subject for OSR. Well, once we have
> answered the already-asked questions, of course.
>
> Cheers,
>  David
>
> On Wed, 2008-02-06 at 13:04 +0100, Vincent Hanquez wrote:
> > well i'm pretty sure you could go down even further with your own
> > implementation of a buffer library.
> >
> > the buffer library is actually pretty bad since it's actually just
> a
> > simple string. each time the buffer need to grow, the string is
> > reallocated and the previous one is copied to the new string.
> > and you got the 16mb limit (max_string_length) on 32bit.
> >
> > if you implement a growing array of fixed sized string (4K for
> example),
> > you just don't need to copy data each time your buffer need to
> grow. I
> > suspect it might be even faster than the normal buffer in your case
> > (lots of data appending), but depends on what you do with your
> buffer
> > afterwards.
> >
> --
> David Teller
>  Security of Distributed Systems
>   http://www.univ-orleans.fr/lifo/Members/David.Teller
>  Angry researcher: French Universities need reforms, but the LRU act
> brings liquidations.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:
> http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list
> Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
> Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners
> Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
>