On Feb 20, 2006, at 18:25, Bernhard Schmalhofer wrote:
Is there a performance penalty for having these methods?
No, just a bit of more code size. Well, looks like compiler writers
wants these methods, so we'll keep 'em.
leo
Bob Rogers schrieb:
From: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 14:55:03 +0100
in order to store the contents of a PMC into a boolean array? What do I
et al. I think, if you use a BooleanArray with compact storage you are
knowing why and don't need automatic conver
From: Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 14:55:03 +0100
*) I don't think that *BooleanArray should support:
set P0[0], 3.2
set P0[1], "foo"
set P0[2], P1
So I would need to do
set I1, P1
set P0[2], I1
in order to store the cont
Leo~
On 2/20/06, Leopold Toetsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> *) the resizable variant is heavily borked WRT allocation size
> fixes welcome
>
> *) I don't think that *BooleanArray should support:
>
>set P0[0], 3.2
>set P0[1], "foo"
>set P0[2], P1
>
> nor
>
>set N0, P[0]
>.
*) the resizable variant is heavily borked WRT allocation size
fixes welcome
*) I don't think that *BooleanArray should support:
set P0[0], 3.2
set P0[1], "foo"
set P0[2], P1
nor
set N0, P[0]
...
et al. I think, if you use a BooleanArray with compact storage you are
knowing why
