On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 5:04 AM, David Bergman <David.Bergman@bergmangupta.com> 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