String hierarchy (was: UTC-8 (was ...))

AGREE at CarltonFields.com AGREE at CarltonFields.com
Mon Mar 20 21:27:51 UTC 2000


Is it apparent that it is necessary?  Perhaps its premature.  Shouldn't we implement the thing using traditional bit operations or multiplication, and see how fast it runs before modifying the VM to seek a possibly non-essential "speedup."  Indeed, perhaps pluggable primitives would suffice if any speedup were needed.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: MIME :spair at advantive.com > Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 4:03 PM
> To: squeak at cs.uiuc.edu
> Subject: RE: String hierarchy (was: UTC-8 (was ...))
> > > Maybe what is needed is a "BitArray" where the element size > is configurable
> (either through subclassing or through an inst var setting).
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dean_Swan at Mitel.COM [mailto:Dean_Swan at Mitel.COM]
> > Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 3:03 PM
> > To: squeak at cs.uiuc.edu
> > Subject: RE: String hierarchy (was: UTC-8 (was ...))
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From:  Dean Swan at MITEL on 03/20/2000 03:02 PM
> >
> > >I wrote:
> > >    > The thing we _do_ need is to have '16-bit byte' arrays
> > >    > supported just like '8-bit byte arrays',
> > >
> > >Someone replied
> > >
> > >    Isn't that a raw implementation detail?
> > >
> > >Yes and no.  If one uses halves of 32-bit bytes or pairs > of 8-bit bytes
> > >then basicSize will be wrong, which would at least be odd.
> >
> >      FWIW, Squeak does have '16-bit byte' arrays.  Look at the
> > 'SoundBuffer'
> > class, which is a subclass of 'ArrayedCollection'.
> >
> >
> >                                    -Dean Swan
> >                                    dean_swan at mitel.com
> >
> >
> >
> > > > 





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list