Hi --

On Sat, 6 Jul 2002, Tobias Reif wrote:

> David Alan Black wrote:
>
>
> > If you literally mean that String should be understood as inheriting
> > all the methods from Array, then I think this is too rigid a picture.
>
>
> stuff that's not shared could be undef'd, or not included

I think there's more to some of the relationship between strings and
arrays, though -- especially something like join/split, where what an
array is join'ing itself into is a string.  That makes me think there
must be a hyper/meta/ur notion of stringhood, logically simultaneous
with (not subsequent to) the notion of arrayhood.

> > I've always thought that strings are basically arrays but merit
> > certain kinds of special treatment, extra methods, optimizations
> > (syntax as well as speed), etc., because they are so common that it's
> > worth trading off some consistency (in their treatment as arrays) to
> > make them easier to handle.
>
>
> extra methods, sure;
> wouldn't speed be more behind the scenes?

Yes -- I was mainly thinking of optimizations or sugarizations of
syntax (such as the "" constructor)


David

-- 
David Alan Black
home: dblack / candle.superlink.net
work: blackdav / shu.edu
Web:  http://pirate.shu.edu/~blackdav