<p>In fact, unboxed arrays of tuples are represented in vector as tuples of unboxed arrays.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Aug 9, 2012 4:35 AM, "Ketil Malde" <<a href="mailto:ketil@malde.org">ketil@malde.org</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
David Feuer <<a href="mailto:david.feuer@gmail.com">david.feuer@gmail.com</a>> writes:<br>
<br>
> So I was thinking about a mutable array of tuples, but to avoid allocating<br>
> tuples to modify their fields, I guess I really want an immutable array of<br>
> tuples of STRefs. Just how much less efficient is this than a plain mutable<br>
> array? might it even make sense to use parallel mutable arrays? The thought<br>
> of that is disgusting to me, but at least one of the arrays could likely be<br>
> made unboxed...<br>
<br>
Maybe you could use a tuple of (unboxed) arrays instead? Or if you use<br>
Vector instead of Array, I think tuples are member of Unbox (as long as<br>
the tuple elements are), and can be used directly in unboxed vectors.<br>
<br>
-k<br>
--<br>
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Haskell-Cafe mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org">Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe" target="_blank">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe</a><br>
</blockquote></div>