Re: [Caml-list] Strings

From: Ashish Agarwal <agarwal1975@gmail.com>
To: Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com>
Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Strings
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:18:51 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <d8be5ae20904030718s9ee32c1g7cfe0255fc07d341@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200904031256.33357.jon@ffconsultancy.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1053 bytes --]

> I found immutable strings to be a PITAin what way?

On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com> wrote:

>
> I read that batteries included provides first-class rope-based strings and
> I
> was just reading up on some horror stories about immutable strings on
> StackOverflow. This made me wonder what people's thoughts are about mutable
> vs immutable strings?
>
> I had never thought about it until I started porting my OCaml code to F#
> where
> strings are immutable and I found immutable strings to be a PITA. Immutable
> array-based strings seem pointless to me but I'd still appreciate an
> immutable rope-based string...
>
> --
> Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
> http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1730 bytes --]