Re: [Caml-list] Immutable strings

["John F. Carr" <jfc@MIT.EDU>]

 > This isn't my idea, but it seems worth repeating: perhaps it would
 > make sense to have an unmovable byte-array type that had the same
 > memory representation as Bytes.t, with the extra guarantee that the
 > collector wouldn't move it.

I don't think this can be implemented without a significant runtime
change.  If your program is special enough to need pinned strings, try
turning off compaction with Gc.set.  The collector will never move
objects larger than 256 words.

It is easy to allocate a string from outside the heap, so the
collector can not move it, but then you have to do manual memory
management.  Manual memory management means explicit free or a
finalizer on an object you know will outlive any reference to the
string.