Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2026 11:07:38 -0400
On Mon, Apr 20, 2026 at 10:52 AM Muneem via Std-Proposals
<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Give me sometime to understand your code and respond. I will also write some extra possible implementations for the proposed tuple type tomorrow and run bench marks against Mine, your's, and Simon's code. I am confident mine is faster by a large margin since I can choose any implementation, which is to prove that a new type with a new implementation is good because the compiler can choose any implementation. Of this ofcourse would be just talking until I provide some numbers to back myself up.
>
> Billions thanks to everyone for their feedback.
Note that it cannot just be faster at random access. You also have to
look at how much slower it is at copying, or iterating through
sequences of them due to the excess bloat in the type.
It's a memory vs. performance tradeoff, so you need to look at the
downsides too.
<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Give me sometime to understand your code and respond. I will also write some extra possible implementations for the proposed tuple type tomorrow and run bench marks against Mine, your's, and Simon's code. I am confident mine is faster by a large margin since I can choose any implementation, which is to prove that a new type with a new implementation is good because the compiler can choose any implementation. Of this ofcourse would be just talking until I provide some numbers to back myself up.
>
> Billions thanks to everyone for their feedback.
Note that it cannot just be faster at random access. You also have to
look at how much slower it is at copying, or iterating through
sequences of them due to the excess bloat in the type.
It's a memory vs. performance tradeoff, so you need to look at the
downsides too.
Received on 2026-04-20 15:07:53