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.
Roman
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
