WRT *BooleanArray
Leopold Toetsch
fixes welcome
*) I don't think that *BooleanArray should support:
set P0[0], 3.2
set P0[1], "foo"
set P0[2], P1
nor
set N0, P[0]
...
et al. I think, if you use a BooleanArray with compact storage you are
knowing why and don't need automatic conversion to/from float, string,
nor PMC.
What do you think?
leo
Matt Fowles
I agree that you don't need string. PMC you probably want, since
there are boolean PMCs and what not. Float I am not sure of.
Matt
--
"Computer Science is merely the post-Turing Decline of Formal Systems Theory."
-Stan Kelly-Bootle, The Devil's DP Dictionary
Bob Rogers
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 14:55:03 +0100
*) I don't think that *BooleanArray should support:
set P0[0], 3.2
set P0[1], "foo"
set P0[2], P1
So I would need to do
set I1, P1
set P0[2], I1
in order to store the contents of a PMC into a boolean array? What do I
do if I don't know the type of the destination array when I am compiling
this code?
nor
set N0, P[0]
...
et al. I think, if you use a BooleanArray with compact storage you are
knowing why and don't need automatic conversion to/from float, string,
nor PMC.
What do you think?
leo
That would mean that I can't pass a boolean array to code that wants to
operate on a generic array, which seems limiting.
-- Bob Rogers
http://rgrjr.dyndns.org/
Bernhard Schmalhofer
As ResizableBooleanArray is meant for general use by HLLs I wouldn't want to
put any special restrictions on it. Everything that can be evaluated in
a Boolean context should be usable for setting the bits in an Array.
Is there a performance penalty for having these methods?
Regards, Bernhard
Leopold Toetsch
On Feb 20, 2006, at 18:25, Bernhard Schmalhofer wrote:
> Is there a performance penalty for having these methods?
No, just a bit of more code size. Well, looks like compiler writers
wants these methods, so we'll keep 'em.
leo