On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 16:22:39 -0400, bearophile wrote: > Once the language tells apart arrays and slices, the arrays may have a > third field that represents the capacity, and the slices may have a > third field that represents the stride (that defaults to 1).
No, please no! Do I really need to carry around an integer that is going to be unused 99.9% of the time (In my case, probably 100%)? I'd rather have a special type that has a stride. But, the capacity field is good. I would imagine that is a must for appendable arrays. Would be nice to specify an allocation strategy for arrays too, so we can avoid some of the issues being discussed about the GC allocating gigabytes for a 40MB array. -Steve
