Suggestions for Set
waldron.rick at gmail.com
Wed Oct 3 13:15:16 PDT 2012
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Mark S. Miller <erights at google.com> wrote:
> I can't imagine actually getting consensus on making the current default
> change from sparse to dense. We've rejected many breaking changes that were
> less breaking than this would be.
> The subclass notion is interesting though. Reads dominate writes, and
> frozen arrays can only be read anyway. Liskov substitutability on reads
> suggests that dense arrays be a subclass of sparse -- it provides stronger
> guarantees. Arranging the subclassing that way would also not be a breaking
In Sept we briefly discussed an Array subclass "thing" that was never
named... IIRC there was some interest, but it was controversial.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the es-discuss