Re: [boost] SuperString v2 in the vault

From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-09 21:34:25

Jeff Garland wrote:

> After using it a bit, it seems to me that the immutable approach is likely 
> viable for most applications.  To see the impact, I wrote a little performance 
> test.  On mutating operations const_super_string is clearly slower.  The 
> benefit on non-mutating operations is minimal. However, this version is 
> probably not as optimized as possible and it under emphasizes allocation, so I 
> expect in actual practice the mutable version may better than these tests 
> demonstrate. Your mileage may vary.

There's another strategy that's not done in the tests:
immutable strings returning lazily evaluated views (ala
Fusion). I bet ya, such a strategy will leave both versions
in the dust (especially on compound operations, which BTW
you don't currently have), but I'll avoid making claims for
now. I intend to look into this when I get some time.

Regards,
-- 
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boost-consulting.com
http://spirit.sf.net