[Haskell-cafe] Re: Mutable but boxed arrays?

[Josef Svenningsson]

On 9/6/07, Simon Marlow <simonmarhaskell at gmail.com> wrote:
> Ketil Malde wrote:
> > I, on the other hand, have always wondered why the strict arrays are
> > called "unboxed", rather than, well, "strict"?  Strictness seems to be
> > their observable property, while unboxing is just an (admittedly
> > important) implementation optimization.  I imagine that it'd be at least
> > as easy to implement the strictness as the unboxedness for non-GHC
> > compilers, and thus increase compatibility.
>
> You're quite right, that was a mistake, we should have called them strict
> arrays.  Hugs implements the unboxed arrays without any kind of unboxing, I
> believe.
>
Any chance of a Data.Array.Strict and deprecating Data.Array.Unboxed?

Cheers,

/Josef