On 9/6/07, Simon Marlow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ketil Malde wrote: > > I, on the other hand, have always wondered why the strict arrays are > > called "unboxed", rather than, well, "strict"? Strictness seems to be > > their observable property, while unboxing is just an (admittedly > > important) implementation optimization. I imagine that it'd be at least > > as easy to implement the strictness as the unboxedness for non-GHC > > compilers, and thus increase compatibility. > > You're quite right, that was a mistake, we should have called them strict > arrays. Hugs implements the unboxed arrays without any kind of unboxing, I > believe. > Any chance of a Data.Array.Strict and deprecating Data.Array.Unboxed?
Cheers, /Josef _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
