On Wed, Nov 3, 2021 at 11:34 PM Jacques Nadeau <jacq...@apache.org> wrote:
> In a perfect world we would have done a better job in the object > hierarchy/behavior of making this explicit but we don't live in that world, > unfortunately. Makes sense, but I thought that was exactly the reason why set/setSafe are only available for FixedWidth vectors. On those once the size is set it seems fairly safe to mutate them if the set methods take care of updating null values too. So more in general I think that my question was if we should grow mutate functions in C++ and other bindings too for fixed size arrays or if we should remove mutate features from Java API and have people deal with buffers if they want to mutate things (so that's more explicit that you are messing with internals) so that we have a consistent experience across bindings.
