No I think its still only pointers to the type objects that are stored in
the array. But note that what Jameson wrote still holds. In ccall you can
assume that the type has C struct layout. No need to go for an immutable
there.
Tobi
Am Montag, 9. Februar 2015 19:00:15 UTC+1 schrieb Simon Danisch:
>
> But arrays of* type* are still not densely packed, right?
> I tried it with the newest master and it doesn't look like it.
>
>
> Am Sonntag, 8. Februar 2015 21:35:20 UTC+1 schrieb vav...@uwaterloo.ca:
>>
>> I would like to request the following language feature: a function or
>> macro to modify a field of an immutable inside a container. Consider:
>>
>> immutable T
>> fielda::Int
>> fieldb::Int
>> fieldc::Int
>> end
>>
>> function modify_fieldc!(x::Array{T,1}, sub::Int, newc::Int)
>> x[sub] = T(x[sub].fielda, x[sub].fieldb, newc)
>> end
>>
>> This function modifies one field of an immutable object that sits inside
>> a container. The above construct, namely:
>> x[sub] = T(x[sub].field1, x[sub].field2, ... , newval, ...
>> x[sub].fieldn)
>> occurs rather frequently in my code. It is not very readable and is also
>> fragile in the case that I modify my code and put more fields in T later.
>> It would be much nicer if there were a universal function like this:
>> modifyField!(x, sub, fieldc, newc)
>>
>> Note that I declared T to be 'immutable' rather than 'type' for
>> performance reasons-- I prefer the data in the array x to be packed in
>> memory rather than accessed with pointers. If T were a 'type' then
>> obviously the problem would go away.
>>
>> Maybe it is already possible to write a function or macro for this
>> purpose in the existing language?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Steve Vavasis
>>
>>
