On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Andrew Coppin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bertram Felgenhauer wrote: >> >> It's not going to be fixed by itself - the first comment for the >> bug report basically asks interested parties to submit a proposal >> for changing this. >> > > Well I certainly don't have the skill to fix it. (Presumably all that array > stuff is hard-wired into the compiler.) > Actually, it isn't. The code - the bounds-checking code, at least - is fairly plain haskell in the Array package. You could take a look and, quite possibly, fix it.
> In my opinion, what we should have is > > 1. An interface that is guaranteed-safe, no matter how inefficient that is. > > 2. An interface that is guaranteed-efficient, no matter how unsafe that is. > > 3. It should be extremely easy to switch from one to the other. > > You write your code against the safe interface, test it until you're happy > with it, and then switch to the fast interface. > Sounds good to me. > Currently, the "safe" interface actually allows out-of-bounds indicies (in a > way which reveals the underlying implementation), and the "fast" interface > isn't publicly supported. Both of these things should be changed. > Go ahead. :) _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
