David Feuer <david.fe...@gmail.com> writes: > So I was thinking about a mutable array of tuples, but to avoid allocating > tuples to modify their fields, I guess I really want an immutable array of > tuples of STRefs. Just how much less efficient is this than a plain mutable > array? might it even make sense to use parallel mutable arrays? The thought > of that is disgusting to me, but at least one of the arrays could likely be > made unboxed...
Maybe you could use a tuple of (unboxed) arrays instead? Or if you use Vector instead of Array, I think tuples are member of Unbox (as long as the tuple elements are), and can be used directly in unboxed vectors. -k -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
