<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">FSAs intentionally don’t conform to Collection, because multi-dimensional arrays shouldn’t have to conform to a linear (by nature, hence the name “Sequence”) standard, at least by default.</span></div></blockquote></div>I strongly oppose and think it is a really bad idea:<div class="">Even if arrays are modelled multi-dimensional, there's always a canonical way to iterate through their elements, and this is an essential feature of this data type.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Do you have any example for an existing optimisation that is important enough to cripple all fixed size arrays?</div><div class="">Those would not only be used to represent pixel buffers on a graphics card…</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Also, if FSA have only one dimension (that's still my preference), all those issues are can be solved easily in the multidimensional structure build on top of the array.</div></body></html>