From: Alexandre F. <ale...@gm...> - 2008-04-28 12:16:31
|
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Donal K. Fellows <don...@ma...> wrote: > > The bytearray > doesn't have this problem, true, but I'm not convinced that just > adjusting that would be a good value investment (it might be possible to > justify it with additional functionality, such as supporting mapped > files, but that's a lot more work). Donal, I've been thinking about this (read-only mmap seen as a ByteArray) for weeks. Does your remark mean that a contribution might get positive feedback ? (anything above that of [lrange] counts as positive ;-) -Alex PS: also, I propose to fix the lack of zero-conversion byte array support in CONCAT1, which is odd given the better support in [string range]. |