Re: [boost] [string] proposal

Subject: Re: [boost] [string] proposal
From: Dean Michael Berris (mikhailberis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-01-29 16:29:34

On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 5:04 AM, David Bergman
<David.Bergman_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> I have been trying to stay away from those waters. But... Dean: you do have a way of jumping here and there, a bit at random, pulling a straw here and another there. Why don't you (Dean, that is) just focus on proposing a really good immutable (or partially immutable...) byte sequence type and we see where we go from there?
>

Okay. :)

> Trying to either convince people that most text handling (on top of such a byte-based sequence type) would benefit from the immutability, performance- or concurrency-wise or that this byte sequence type is somehow entangled with text handling will either fail or confuse and subsequently fail.
>

Okay. :)

> Being an old FP aficionado (currently working mostly in Clojure, actually), I welcome immutable types. But as Steven Watanabe pointed out, your structure is only partially immutable; I can't remember anymore, but I trust him there.
>
> So: please go ahead and suggest an immutable_byte_sequence type and we might be able to (ab-)use it for a lot of cool stuff.
>

Okay. :)

/me shutting up now. ;)

-- 
Dean Michael Berris
about.me/deanberris