I originally proposed ContiguousArray but I vote for UniformAccessArray, it seems the most descriptive to me.

On a related note: in #750 I also proposed to make StridedArray a part of the abstract hierarchy rather than a Union, but that would cause problems in capturing the A<:Array tag which is part of the current definition.
However: as things are defined now, SubArrays would not fit in UniformAccessArray (or whatever it's going to be called), since they can be associated in general with AbstractArrays. But StridedArrays restrict that to Arrays, so StridedArrays should be legitimately thought of as UniformAccessArrays. I don't think it's possible to do that with a Union though.

Wouldn't it make sense to restrict SubArrays to be derived from UniormAccessArray only, once we have that? It seems to me that they already are implemented with that assumption implicitly. If so, then perhaps the A<:Array tag could be dropped in StridedArray and it could be made part of the hierarchy.

array type hierarchy #987

Description

JeffBezansonopenedon Jun 28, 2012

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions

JeffBezanson
openedon Jun 28, 2012