rl: > On 30/11/2008, at 08:32, Andrew Coppin wrote: > > >Henning Thielemann wrote: > >>I suspect that this particular function is less useful than you > >>think. > >>It safes one allocation and might be faster since it uses less cache, > >>but on the other hand, it cannot be fused. > > Hmm, I haven't seen your original message but I suspect you are > talking about in-place map. In that case, this is not entirely true. > Shameless plug: > > http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~rl/publications/recycling.html > > >>I think in-place array > >>updates are only sensible for writing array elements in really random > >>order. As long as you can formulate your algorithm the way "read from > >>random indices, but write a complete array from left to right", > >>there is > >>almost no need for mutable arrays. > > Many array algorithms cannot really be written in this way. I think we > do need mutable arrays and they should provide much more than just > read/write. How to integrate them nicely with immutable arrays is not > really clear, though.
Should mutable arrays have list-like APIs? All the usual operations, just in-place and destructive where appropriate? -- Don _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe