[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: octothorpe array syntax; other comments
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003, Per Bothner wrote:
>> #( #( 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.