Viktor, Your proposed `arrayToByteArray` seems plausible. Your proposed `byteArrayToShort` is just the newtype-constructor `ShortByteString` which is exposed from Data.ByteString.Short since bytestring-0.12.0.0.
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`.
The 'ShortByteString' type in the "bytestring" package has seen some singnificant improvement recently, and yet its API is still noticeably limited in comparison to its pinned, I/O friendly 'ByteString' elder sibling.
One of the limitations is that that there are fewer ways to construct a 'ShortByteString' object. One often has to restort to constructing a pinned ByteString, and then copy. (There no "ST" Builders that write to resizable MutableByteArrays instead of raw memory pointers).
Meanwhile, under-the covers, both the "UArray i Word8" type and 'ShortByteString' hold an immutable 'ByteArray', and the STUArray API provides a flexible "UArray" construction interface.
Would it be reasonable to "bridge" the two APIs:
Data.Array.Unboxed: (re-export from Data.Array.Base) import Data.Array.Byte
arrayToByteArray :: UArray i Word8 -> ByteArray arrayToByteArray (UArray _ _ _ ba#) = ByteArray ba# {-# INLINE arrayToByArrray #-}
Data.ByteString.Short: (re-export from Data.ByteString.Short.Internal) byteArrayToShort :: ByteArray -> ShortByteString byteArrayToShort = coerce {-# INLINE byteArrayToShort #-}
It would then be possible to write:
short = byteArrayToShort $ arrayToByteArray $ runSTUArray m where m = do a <- newArray (0, last) 0 -- zero fill sequence_ [ writeArray a ix e | (ix, e) <- generator ]
and generate the bytes of a 'ShortByteString' from an arbitrary computation, possibly merging multiple inputs into some bytes by using the recently introduced "modifyArray" (or explicit read/modify/write).
Any thoughts about the wisdom or lack thereof of this proposal?
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':
runMutableByteArray :: (forall s. ST s (MutableByteArray s)) -> ByteArray runMutableByteArray m = runST $ m >>= freezeMutableByteArray
freezeMutableByteArray (MutableByteArray mba#) = ST $ \s -> case unsafeFreezeByteArray# mba# s of (# s', ba# #) -> (# s', ByteArray ba# #)
Since "Data.Array.Byte" is an "array" (rather than string) interface, it could have a richer set of indexed read/write/modify primitives along the lines of those found in "Data.Array.STUArray", but specialised to 'Word8' elements and implicit zero-based integer indexing.
The flexible construction I seek would then be via "Data.Array.Bytes", rather than the somewhat too general index and value types from UArray.
short = byteArrayToShort $ runMutableByteArray m where m = do a <- newByteArray size 0 -- 0 fill sequence_ [ writeByteArray a ix e | (ix, e) <- generator ]
In this scenario, the indexed-mutation of ShortByteStrings under construction, or indexed-mutation of copies for various transformations, could live in Data.Array.Byte, with ShortByteString and various applications leveraging the random-access mutation (and resizing, ...) to implement higher level operations.
-- Viktor.