[plt-scheme] efficient string operations yielding immutable strings

Do you have a similar set of names for cons (cans?) vector (vulcan?)
and box (bix as in Bix Beiderbecke)?

Robby

At Fri, 26 Mar 2004 08:34:18 -0500, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>   For list-related administrative tasks:
>   http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
> 
> As Paul Graham likes to point out, Lisp (and Scheme is one in his mind) 
> uses library names that are way too long. Let's use strung. And for 
> substringing you can say strung-out. -- Matthias
> 
> 
> On Mar 25, 2004, at 11:40 PM, Neil W. Van Dyke wrote:
> 
> >   For list-related administrative tasks:
> >   http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
> >
> > Motivation: Now that I've started coding with immutable strings, 
> > mutable
> > strings are seeming more and more like a special case, and rarely what 
> > I
> > want.  I've written some convenience procedures like
> > "substring-immutable" and "string-append-immutable" that apply
> > "string->immutable-string" to the result of the familiar standard
> > procedures.  From looking at the MzScheme C code, it seems these
> > convenience procedures of mine are grossly inefficient compared to how
> > they would be implemented as primitives (they, e.g., cause 2 or 3 
> > string
> > allocations, when only 0 or 1 is necessary).
> >
> > Question: If I were to implement a set of string operation primitives
> > that always yield immutable strings, can someone suggest a visually
> > lightweight naming convention?  "substring-immutable",
> > "string-append-immutable", "string-lowercase-immutable", etc. seem
> > bulky.  I don't really want to use a non-alphanumeric character as a
> > suffix for this.
> >
> > P.S.: If there were a mutating operation that turned a mutable string
> >       immutable, that might be helpful in some cases, but I imagine
> >       it would overconstrain the Scheme implementation's internals.
> >
> > -- 
> >                                              
> > http://www.neilvandyke.org/