On Sun, Feb 05, 2006 at 12:39:14AM +0300, Bulat Ziganshin wrote:
JM> appropriate building blocks, but their interfaces are rather austere JM> compared to FastPackedString, and it would nice to have all of its JM> options available in something not dedicated just to strings, since we JM> have already implemented them in any case.
so it seems logical to add these interfaces to all arrays or at least all unboxed arrays? this also corresponds with problem of having common collections interface, what is a goal of J.P. Bernardy
Yeah, the standard array classes need some reworking, we definitly need to take another look at them if we are going to put them in the language. If a list-like interface (as FastPackedString implements) is useful for all of them then it would be good thing to add to a class. (though, it would be an interface useful independently of arrays, lists in particular :) ). Though, independent of that whole ball of wax, the FastByteString concrete data type would be nice to have. John -- John Meacham - ⑆repetae.net⑆john⑈