> On Aug 3, 2017, at 8:20 PM, Karl Wagner via swift-evolution
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> The root cause, of course, is that the VLAs require new stack allocations
>>> each time, and the stack is only deallocated as one lump when the frame
>> That is true of alloca(), but not of VLAs. VLAs are freed when they go out
>> of scope.
> Learned something today.
> Anyway, if the goal is stack allocation, I would prefer that we explored
> other ways to achieve it before jumping to a new array-type. I’m not really a
> fan of a future where [3; Double] is one type and (Double, Double, Double) is
> something else, and Array<Double> is yet another thing.
Just about every system programming language has all three of these, since you
can’t really stop these “similar” types from co-existing. The third type uses
remote storage, while the first two are scoped storage. A heterogenous product
type template has to include homogenous product types as a subset. And
instruction generators can produce different code between tuples and arrays;
are you willing to forfeit one set of optimizations?
Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie
darylew AT mac DOT com
swift-evolution mailing list