[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: octothorpe array syntax; other comments

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 47 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 47 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Per Bothner wrote:

>bear wrote:
>> #,(array
>>   #( #( a0 a1 a2)
>>      #( b0 b1 b2)
>>      #( c0 c1 c2)))
>> Is a better notation -- more general and extensible, and
>> requires less special reader support.  No need to mention
>> rank and size; those are implicitly given by the structure.
>How would you handle 0*N arrays?

  Do I understand correctly?  You mean An array of no elements, whose
every element is an array of N elements?

  Why is this different from or more useful than any other kind of
array of no elements?

  I am aware that you can get such entities as a result in matrix
operations, but I had always (perhaps mistakenly?)  regarded them as a
degenerate case not useful for further processing, and so didn't feel
that they needed a source syntax.