[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: using empty_string as the only "" string
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: using empty_string as the only "" string |
Date: |
Thu, 26 Apr 2007 00:23:39 -0400 |
How you can modify the multibyteness of an empty string ? You can't aset
multibyte char (as well as anything else) into empty string, and conversion
functions like 'string-make-unibyte' or 'string-to-multibyte' always creates
new strings instead of touching an argument. Moreover, since "" is a
no-op in concatenation operations, it may be silently discarded without
looking into internal structure, isn't it ?
The multibyteness of a null string does affect concatenation.
But you are right, I believe, that it is impossible to alter the
multibyteness of an existing null string. You can't do it with aset
because there are no positions you could store in.
Thus, it would be necessary to keep one canonical null unibyte string
and one canonical null multibyte string.
- Re: Using empty_string as the only "" string, (continued)
- Re: Using empty_string as the only "" string, Stefan Monnier, 2007/04/24
- Re: Using empty_string as the only "" string, Richard Stallman, 2007/04/24
- Re: using empty_string as the only "" string, dmantipov, 2007/04/25
- Re: using empty_string as the only "" string,
Richard Stallman <=
- Re: using empty_string as the only "" string, Dmitry Antipov, 2007/04/26
- Re: using empty_string as the only "" string, Richard Stallman, 2007/04/27
- Re: using empty_string as the only "" string, Dmitry Antipov, 2007/04/27
- Re: using empty_string as the only "" string, David Kastrup, 2007/04/27
- Re: using empty_string as the only "" string, Richard Stallman, 2007/04/28
- Re: using empty_string as the only "" string, Dmitry Antipov, 2007/04/28
- Re: using empty_string as the only "" string, Richard Stallman, 2007/04/28