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)