5 Jun
2011
5 Jun
'11
6 p.m.
I wrote:
I was thinking of even lower level: allocating a moderate chunk of memory and writing the results directly into it consecutively as a special case.
Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
Surely that would save only one copy compared to creating a list of results and then concatenating them, no? I'd be a little surprised if it proved worthwhile.
If behind the scenes the concat is copying directly from slices of the original input, then no, in principle we're not saving much then. I thought there were *two* copies going on. It might be possible to keep the byte count only in the special case of a concatenating combinator, but that would require some work to implement. Thanks as usual for the fantastic work, Yitz