Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnewse!cwpjr
From: cwpjr@cbnewse.att.com (clyde.w.jr.phillips)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.forth
Subject: Re: Data Structures
Summary: Optional NULL strings
Message-ID: <1990Sep13.140649.5282@cbnewse.att.com>
Date: 13 Sep 90 14:06:49 GMT
References: <1716.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 13

In article <1716.UUL1.3#5129@willett.pgh.pa.us>, ForthNet@willett.pgh.pa.us (ForthNet articles from GEnie) writes:
> 
>   2.) Why not have counted strings that are optionally null-terminated?

I agree we should have it but ynot is because it's bowing to C peer pressure.
I think having to "scan" a string to determine it's length is bad ( its Bahhd ).
We have a little overhead for sureties sake.

However if we make a null terminator manditory AND "counted"
a little more overhead ( stop on nulls ) might add a "good" flavor
to our strings ( I would have said spaghetti but you never know what
type of person is reading this! )
I'll get around to assessing this sooner or later. Clyde