On Mon, Nov 13, 2023 at 09:35:06PM -0500, Matthew Craven wrote:
Your proposed `arrayToByteArray` seems plausible.
Thanks, that could be handy, but see below.
Your proposed `byteArrayToShort` is just the newtype-constructor `ShortByteString` which is exposed from Data.ByteString.Short since bytestring-0.12.0.0.
Thanks. I did not notice these are now exposed without having to import unstable "Internal" interfaces: GHCi, version 9.8.1: ... λ> import Data.Array.Byte λ> import Data.ByteString.Short λ> :t ShortByteString ShortByteString :: Data.Array.Byte.ByteArray -> ShortByteString λ> :t SBS SBS :: GHC.Prim.ByteArray# -> ShortByteString λ> :t ByteArray ByteArray :: GHC.Prim.ByteArray# -> ByteArray So as of GHC 9.8.1 and "bytestring" 12, I have all the missing glue.
An alternative is to add a tailored version of the UArray and STUArray APIs to 'MutableByteArray' by extending the rather limited API of 'Data.Array.Byte':
How does this compare to the interface provided by primitive:Data.Primitive.ByteArray? Their `runByteArray` is your `runMutableByteArray`.
I was unaware that the "primitive" packages already provides what I was looking for. Unlike the case with "array", there's no duplication of bounds checks for performing separate read/write at the same index (because there are no bounds checks), so the "missing" will not be missed. Looks like I'm all set. Just need to use 'SBS' in place of 'ShortByteString' while working with GHC 9.[246].*. For my use case, I don't need the additional safety (bounds checks) of "array", but it is perhaps reasonable to consider adding the proposed bridge (from UArray i Word8), for users who want a bit more safety than one gets with "primitive". -- Viktor.