[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: various comments
Radey Shouman writes:
> Per Bothner <per@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > Note an implication of this representation is that you don't want to
> > use a general array for a shape. Instead' you'd want a shape to be a
> > simple (but read-only) vector. So I strongly suggest that the specification
> > be changed to make shape be a *one*-dimensional array - or better
> > yet make it an unspecified opaque type. (In that case for Kawa I would
> > use a simple Java primitive int array.) Of course an implementation
> > does have the option of using a simple array interally for a shape, and
> > having array-shape wrap it in a general array, but that means that
> > array-shape would have to do object allocation.
> I would like to strongly second the suggestion to make the array shape
> an unspecified opaque type. A two-dimensional array may well be
> optimal in the reference implementation, but it will likely be a
> burden for more primitively implemented arrays. Also, I find the idea
> that an array shape object should become immutable only after passing
> it to one of the array functions as a shape to be a little bit weird.
Thirded. Making an array shap an array seems to be confusing specification
with implementation. I think that you're really defining two types of
objects in this SRFI, arrays *and* shapes.