Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!ihnp4!ihuxy!nowlin
From: nowlin@ihuxy.ATT.COM (Jerry Nowlin)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.postscript
Subject: Re: string concatenation (efficiency)
Summary: thanks for the help
Keywords: PostScript strings efficiency
Message-ID: <2574@ihuxy.ATT.COM>
Date: 6 Jul 88 18:53:31 GMT
References: <2564@ihuxy.ATT.COM> <4059@adobe.COM>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois
Lines: 30

In article <4059@adobe.COM>, greid@ondine.COM (Glenn Reid) writes:
> There is no inherent mechanism for string concatenation in the
> PostScript language.  Basically you have to allocate a new string
> ...
> Anyway, here is a procedure that should help (be aware that it uses
> memory each time it is called, equal to the sum of the lengths of the
> strings you are concatenating):
> ...
> Glenn Reid
> Adobe Systems

I first want to thank all the people who responded directly to my initial
request as well as those that responded in this group.  I have multiple
string concatenation routines now and eventually realized (as Glenn pointed
out) that I didn't need it anyway.

The next question I have is one directed toward the importance of
efficiency in programming in PostScript.  I have experience in programming
for efficiency in languages like C and assembler.  The constant effort to
conserve bytes and cycles can really effect the style used.

How important is efficiency in PostScript?  How wasteful is the use of
variables as opposed to the sometimes (to me) obscure stack management
schemes that are used in some of the examples posted to this group.  I've
noticed the green book talks about memory management and real-time
efficiency.  How important are these in general?  Is the green book the
best place to find out how to write efficient PostScript?

Jerry Nowlin
(...!ihnp4!ihuxy!nowlin)