From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <agarwal1975@gmail.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,
	HTML_MESSAGE,SPF_NEUTRAL autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3
X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Received: from mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail1-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.82])
	by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB884BBC4
	for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Fri,  3 Apr 2009 16:18:52 +0200 (CEST)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApcEAIS31UnRVYT3m2dsb2JhbACCIQUvikmIRT8BAQEBAQgJCgkRp2WBCJAxAQMBA4QMBg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.38,431,1233529200"; 
   d="scan'208";a="26965412"
Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.247])
  by mail1-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 03 Apr 2009 16:18:52 +0200
Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c38so723474ana.3
        for <caml-list@yquem.inria.fr>; Fri, 03 Apr 2009 07:18:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references
         :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
        bh=nj46aOnMXW2nlCcv57FepziL6wyUoOKfS32TVQDOtBg=;
        b=NmftevT6HrlBZOy3cuUWbsfbSocMJD8oOKH/WWS0PgJxSgA2H+bM906+hitpn2mom5
         p3lrUp01SuUlMro487XLoVfy5KfIz7PIf/UmzVStjFH6bdz95iHQ++ojnXDQV4US7fTr
         IJB0GiuUYkDpa5JX/Qcl596hS/9zWsNLhrgwA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :cc:content-type;
        b=odc7o3OYdypwha6xynw4ym1Y1TzfA+MIyQNFISeAU7Bdv/8ini3b7zO+jnzZaxoyyV
         d7Ah9RUXUeuWOqFt2L5nCYuGLDSRFhxgOOIOAvN4cJur5IvXKGhQC+8wQrdT9S5mYaco
         +VV1XYMw6Rco7IkBMJGzyL0MbPQybLjZJ7Qec=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.100.231.16 with SMTP id d16mr2776102anh.93.1238768331131; Fri, 
	03 Apr 2009 07:18:51 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <200904031256.33357.jon@ffconsultancy.com>
References: <200904031256.33357.jon@ffconsultancy.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 10:18:51 -0400
Message-ID: <d8be5ae20904030718s9ee32c1g7cfe0255fc07d341@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Strings
From: Ashish Agarwal <agarwal1975@gmail.com>
To: Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com>
Cc: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016368e1f5e5614560466a73a12
X-Spam: no; 0.00; mutable:01 ocaml:01 beginner's:01 ocaml:01 bug:01 mutable:01 beginner's:01 bug:01 1975:98 2009:98 frog:98 2009:98 frog:98 beginners:01 beginners:01 

--0016368e1f5e5614560466a73a12
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> 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
>

--0016368e1f5e5614560466a73a12
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

&gt;=A0I found immutable strings to be a PITA<div>in what way?<br></div><di=
v><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 7:56 AM, Jon Ha=
rrop <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:jon@ffconsultancy.com">jon@ffc=
onsultancy.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><br>
I read that batteries included provides first-class rope-based strings and =
I<br>
was just reading up on some horror stories about immutable strings on<br>
StackOverflow. This made me wonder what people&#39;s thoughts are about mut=
able<br>
vs immutable strings?<br>
<br>
I had never thought about it until I started porting my OCaml code to F# wh=
ere<br>
strings are immutable and I found immutable strings to be a PITA. Immutable=
<br>
array-based strings seem pointless to me but I&#39;d still appreciate an<br=
>
immutable rope-based string...<br>
<br>
--<br>
Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.<br>
<a href=3D"http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e" target=3D"_blank">http://www.ff=
consultancy.com/?e</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management:<br>
<a href=3D"http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list" target=
=3D"_blank">http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list</a><br=
>
Archives: <a href=3D"http://caml.inria.fr" target=3D"_blank">http://caml.in=
ria.fr</a><br>
Beginner&#39;s list: <a href=3D"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginne=
rs" target=3D"_blank">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners</a><br>
Bug reports: <a href=3D"http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs" target=3D"_blan=
k">http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>

--0016368e1f5e5614560466a73a12--