Re: [Caml-list] Now it's faster (addendum to "Performance-question")

[tab@snarc.org (Vincent Hanquez)]

On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 11:01:37AM +0100, Jean-Christophe Filliâtre wrote:
> Just for fun, I wrote a ropes-based implementation of Buffer. The
> interface is exactly the same. Differences between the two
> implementations are the following:
> 
>  - Contrary to ocaml's standard library, a buffer size is not limited to
>       [Sys.max_string_length], but to [max_int] (sizes are represented
>       internally using native ocaml integers).
> 
>  - [contents] and [sub] raise [Invalid_argument] if the resulting string
>       would be larger than [Sys.max_string_length] bytes.
> 
>  - The meaning of [create]'s argument is not exactly the same,
>     though its value only affects performances, as for [Buffer];
>     see below.
> 
>  - An additional function [print] is provided.

that's nice. how's the performance compare to plain buffer ?

one nit, keeping compatibility is good, however, the contents function
is quite evil (runtime failure), and removing it would be nice as well.
people should use other thing to "iterate" over the contents (even if
contents is quite practical)

Cheers,
-- 
Vincent Hanquez