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