On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 21:10, Ville-Pertti Keinonen wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-02-08 at 20:37 +1100, skaller wrote:
> > But the types in your record are mutable, and so it can't
> > possibly work.
> > 
> > In particular, given two arrays of a record type R containing
> > a mutable field M, the arrays MUST uses boxes or modifications
> > to M in a shared record wouldn't be shared.
> 
> You're apparently talking about an array of records (which obviously
> contains pointers to the records), but the issue (I think) was the
> records themselves, which store floats unboxed if they contain nothing
> else.

Yes, you're right. In the problem, just one level of indirection
wouldn't hurt as much as the numbers seem to indicate.

-- 
John Skaller, mailto:skaller@users.sf.net
voice: 061-2-9660-0850, 
snail: PO BOX 401 Glebe NSW 2037 Australia
Checkout the Felix programming language http://felix.sf.net