You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
This came up on discourse. It's pretty important to have indices that are mutable for a lot of things methods to work (append!, push!, etc.), but there are times it's worth improving performance and losing mutating functions. I mentioned my work on StaticRanges.jl may be helpful. It provides mutable ranges as well with protective setproperty! methods so that users don't accidently make bizarre changes to a mutable range.
Yes, once some ordering semantics of AbstractDictionary are resolved in #13 I don't see why we can't have array-like dictionaries with ranges as keys.
I don't think implementing this will be too hard - e.g. Indices can have tokens and lookup can defer to findfirst for AbstractArrays, we can set the issettable and isinsertable traits accordingly, or something like that... hmm...
This came up on discourse. It's pretty important to have indices that are mutable for a lot of things methods to work (append!, push!, etc.), but there are times it's worth improving performance and losing mutating functions. I mentioned my work on StaticRanges.jl may be helpful. It provides mutable ranges as well with protective
setproperty!
methods so that users don't accidently make bizarre changes to a mutable range.This could be as simple as:
If this is something you're interested in I'd be interested in further discussing how to implement it.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: