9 Mar
2007
9 Mar
'07
2:56 a.m.
David Roundy wrote:
Actually, I was thinking this sounded a lot like DiffArrays.
Except that DiffArrays are slow and expensive in both space and time (compared with strict unboxed arrays). They necesarily hold boxed values so you pay a factor of at least two in space cost (for arrays of Doubles) right off the top, and there's no way you could recover that. What about using a DiffArray with reasonably-sized (cache-friendly?) UArrays as the elements? That way, the cost of boxing can be amortized over more Doubles. Efficiency would depend on updated patterns, of course.
-k