On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Gregory Collins <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:greg@gregorycollins.net">greg@gregorycollins.net</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

<div class="im"><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 6:57 AM, Ryan Newton <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:rrnewton@gmail.com" target="_blank">rrnewton@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">


<div class="gmail_quote"><div><div>The ByteArray versions will be more annoying, requiring more variations, but they are also less essential, because the user can always use ForeignPtr and bits-atomic in this case, and I believe for our concurrent data structures we want to store arbitrary pointers (hence casArray#).</div>


</div>

<div></div></div></blockquote></div><div><br></div></div>This is true, although using bits-atomic does a function call (i.e the calls are not inlined), which would be pretty bad for performance.</blockquote><div><br></div>

<div>Yes, absolutely... I&#39;d like to add the byte array versions.  Actually, those don&#39;t have GC write barriers so they should be much easier to get right!</div><div><br></div></div>