On 28-10-2009, Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@web.de> wrote:
> Sylvain Le Gall <sylvain@le-gall.net> writes:
>> On 28-10-2009, Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@web.de> wrote:
>>> Sylvain Le Gall <sylvain@le-gall.net> writes:
>>>> On 28-10-2009, Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@web.de> wrote:
>
>>> PS: Is a.{i} <- x a C call?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> That obviously sucks. I was hoping since the compiler has a special
> syntax for it it would be built-in. Bigarray being a seperate module
> should have clued me in.
>
> That obviously speaks against splitting int64 into 8 bytes and calling
> a.{i} <- x for each.
>
> I think I will implement your method and C stubs for every set/get and
> compare.

This is only the case with int64 array in fact (I really have done test
and you don't need a C call in most case).

Moreover, as Xavier suggests, Array1.unsafe_get/set seems nice.

I would however try to find a way to avoid writing too many
set/get_{uint*} functions. This can be a nighmare to maintain.

Regards,
Sylvain Le Gall