[Ecls-list] building maxima

[Juan Jose Garcia-Ripoll]

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 12:37 AM, Raymond Toy <toy.raymond at gmail.com> wrote:

> (I was surprised to see ecl choose the smallest string type to fit a
> literal string.)
>

Why? I mean, an ordinary unicode string without utf-8 packing takes 4 times
the room of a base string. Since ECL is using a string buffer to read
objects, then why shouldn't it pack them to the smallest representation
when possible?

Juanjo

-- 
Instituto de Física Fundamental, CSIC
c/ Serrano, 113b, Madrid 28006 (Spain)
http://juanjose.garciaripoll.googlepages.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/ecl-devel/attachments/20120203/1d794b80/attachment.html>