Is there a performance reason why we would need all these Str variants?AZJIO wrote: Mon Feb 02, 2026 10:28 am AddFastStringStr
AddFastStringVal
AddFString()
AddFStringStr()
BufferString()
AddBufferStringStr()
AddBStringStr()
LenString()
AddLenStringStr()
AddLStringStr()
StringEx()
AddStringExStr()
Would 100,000 iterations of AddFStringStr(a, b) be faster than the same number of AddFString(a, Str(b))?
Because otherwise this seems like a lot of proliferation of functions - and incomplete as it would also need StrF, StrD, maybe Hex versions as well. Maybe even FormatDate()?
We already have a range of simple functions for turning variables of various kinds into strings with flexibility over the formatting, and I'm not sure we need many new functions that replicate all that, unless calling Str() etc all the time defeats the purpose.
(Or am I misunderstanding something here?)
Same argument applies whether it's FastString, StringBuilder, or whatever as the base name of the function.
On that question, what about BuildString()? By analogy with ReadFile(), CreateDirectory(), etc. PB is generally more "VerbNoun()" than "NounVerber()".



