From xemacs-m  Wed Sep 10 14:10:35 1997
Received: from MIT.EDU (SOUTH-STATION-ANNEX.MIT.EDU [18.72.1.2])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA24519
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 14:10:32 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from TEN-THOUSAND-DOLLAR-BILL.MIT.EDU by MIT.EDU with SMTP
	id AA29421; Wed, 10 Sep 97 15:10:06 EDT
Received: by ten-thousand-dollar-bill.MIT.EDU (8.8.5/4.7) id PAA23083; Wed, 10 Sep 1997 15:10:04 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 1997 15:10:04 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <199709101910.PAA23083@ten-thousand-dollar-bill.MIT.EDU>
From: David Bakhash <cadet@MIT.EDU>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Martin Buchholz <mrb@Eng.Sun.COM>
Cc: David Bakhash <cadet@MIT.EDU>, xemacs-beta@xemacs.org
Subject: free speed-up
In-Reply-To: <199709101846.LAA25654@xemacs.eng.sun.com>
References: <199709101832.OAA03108@rattlesnake>
	<199709101846.LAA25654@xemacs.eng.sun.com>
X-Mailer: VM 6.31 under 20.2 XEmacs Lucid

Martin Buchholz writes:
 > I think this is false economy.  If the string is huge, then that temp
 > buffer is going to bloat XEmacs' memory size.  Unless you *know* you
 > are going to call with-string-as-buffer-contents again real soon, it's 
 > likely even faster to just call erase-buffer.

yes.  thanks Hrvoje and Martin.  I was dealing w/ small strings, but
lots of them.  I guess it's better to re-engineer it, but I TAKE BACK
the statment about `speedup for free'.  I should have said "expensive
slowdown".  thanks for clearing it up people.

dave

