In fact, unboxed arrays of tuples are represented in vector as tuples of unboxed arrays. On Aug 9, 2012 4:35 AM, "Ketil Malde" <ke...@malde.org> wrote:
> 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 >
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
