Re: Access time of elements Re: Bad things []

[Per Bothner <per@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

David Rush wrote:

> Per Bothner <per@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> > A modest but not order-or-magnitude difference on a non-optimizing
> > implementation is not does not IMO justify a less natural api.
> >    --Per Bothner
> I would contend that is it a *more* natural API. I find it just as
> annoying as the compiler finds it inefficient to scan past an unknown
> number of arguments to find something that should *always* be there.
Of your two suggestions:

    1 (array-set! a val dim0 dim1 ... dimn)
    2 (array-set! a (array-index dim0 dim1 ... dimn) val)

I can see some appeal in (2), but I do dislike (1).

The main problem with (2) is that it adds a new concept - an
"index object" data-type.

	--Per Bothner