Repository navigation
Add uniquely named type aliases for each Vector type to Data.Vector.Generic #240
Description
Activity
I agree that this would be useful. Anyone else's opinions on whether or not they would think this is useful?
Bikeshedding: What is your opinion on the names? What are others' opinions on the names?
Once we've sorted that out, I think a PR would be great.
- I’ll hash this out with merijn sometime later this summer. It’s not a public mural ;)…On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 3:05 PM chessai ***@***.***> wrote: I agree that this would be useful. Anyone else's opinions on whether or not they would think this is useful? Bikeshedding: What is your opinion on the names? What are others' opinions on the names? Once we've sorted that out, I think a PR would be great. — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#240 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAABBQQO3S74ZM7Q2RF5ORLPU4KIZANCNFSM4HD3L4DQ> .
to be clear, i'd rather avoid large bikesheddings,
and do the person who posted to this ticket and deleted their comment: i'm the maintainer :P
strawman:
BoxedIVec/BoxedMVec -- Data.Vector/Data.Vector.Mutable
UnboxedIVec / UnboxedMVec -- Data.Vector.Unboxed
CStructIVec / CStructMVec -- Data.Vector Storablethe last one is because the Vector use of storable is really about Pinned arrays (on or off heap) via foreign pointers to interact with Arrays of C compatible struct style data (we could call it )
an alternative for unboxed could be SOAIVec and SOAMVec, but that just seems terrible, even though Struct of Array IS a correct term of them.
theres some realted issues of the current punning between the Vector type class and Vector types,which wasn't the case in vector major versions 0.1 and 0.2, but came into play later
I'd err on the side of being explicit and recycling existing naming.
What about just using e.g
StorableVector / MStorableVector BoxedVector / MBoxedVector PrimitiveVector / MPrimitiveVectorThey are more verbose, yes. But that way there isn't any name mangling.
The only thing that has to have a "made up" name is
BoxedVectorasBoxeddoesn't show up anywhere else.- Sounds viable to me.…On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 9:31 PM Edward Kmett ***@***.***> wrote: I'd err on the side of being explicit and recycling existing naming. What about just using e.g StorableVector / MStorableVector BoxedVector / MBoxedVector PrimitiveVector / MPrimitiveVector They are more verbose, yes. But that way there isn't any name mangling. The only thing that has to have a "made up" name is BoxedVector as Boxed doesn't show up anywhere else. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#240?email_source=notifications&email_token=AAABBQU2HLZTB7VZA7U5G63PZBSG3A5CNFSM4HD3L4D2YY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGODXBPBXQ#issuecomment-499314910>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAABBQWY7TMKHLB4HIF6CDDPZBSG3ANCNFSM4HD3L4DQ> .
This would let people more easily write code dealing with multiple
Vectortypes without needing to do a qualified import from a different module for each type, just to get the type in scope. Some of my code has 7 lines ofVectorimports just to bring different types into scope. Having unique alias for each inData.Vector.Genericwould solve that issue