Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cwjcc!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!husc6!yale!Krulwich-Bruce
From: Krulwich-Bruce@cs.yale.edu (Bruce Krulwich)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: pointers in Lisp
Message-ID: <50041@yale-celray.yale.UUCP>
Date: 8 Feb 89 16:21:50 GMT
References: <1710@cps3xx.UUCP> <33722@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <49734@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> <Feb.7.11.41.26.1989.517@lightning.rutgers.edu>
Sender: root@yale.UUCP
Reply-To: Krulwich-Bruce@cs.yale.edu (Bruce Krulwich)
Organization: Computer Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Lines: 16
In-reply-to: weinrich@lightning.rutgers.edu (Timothy M. Weinrich)

In article <Feb.7.11.41.26.1989.517@lightning.rutgers.edu>, weinrich@lightning
(Timothy M. Weinrich) writes:
>
>	A variable-sized array will be both faster and smaller than a
>	list.  (Unless you're using a CDR-coded LISP on a LM, in which
>	case they're the same.)
>
>   Are you taking into consideration (for example) the bounds-checking
>that would almost certainly get compiled into every array reference?

You're right, I wasn't.  People who have sent me mail have said they
find the breakeven point to be around 5-10 elements, so if your sequence
is longer then you should use an array, otherwise a list may be better.


Bruce