Interesting work on packing tuple layout
Paul Backus
snarwin at gmail.com
Sun Jun 14 18:25:29 UTC 2020
On Sunday, 14 June 2020 at 16:26:17 UTC, Avrina wrote:
>
> The situation also applies to the only tuple implementation in
> D. If you are proposing a new type with emphasis on reducing
> the footprint of the tuple then I don't see a problem with
> that. Changing the existing tuple implementation would be
> problematic.
Presumably any such change would be made backwards-compatible. So
Tuple.opIndex and Tuple.expand would still return elements in the
order specified by the user, even if that order is different from
the internal storage order.
More information about the Digitalmars-d-announce
mailing list