Interesting work on packing tuple layout
Timon Gehr
timon.gehr at gmx.ch
Sun Jun 14 19:36:09 UTC 2020
On 14.06.20 20:25, Paul Backus wrote:
> 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.
Indeed, that's why I noted that the obvious way to achieve that does not
work. Although some assumptions will break, for example, there might be
code that assumes that tupleof does the same thing as expand.
I was thinking about e.g., manual cache optimization, but reducing size
in the common case where such considerations are not made may well be
more important. If it can be done at all; I am not currently aware of a
workaround.
More information about the Digitalmars-d-announce
mailing list