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.
| * To: Taylor Campbell <campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxx> | * Subject: Re: octothorpe array syntax; other comments | * From: bear <bear@xxxxxxxxx> | * Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 20:43:57 -0800 (PST) | * Cc: srfi-47@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | * Delivered-to: srfi-47@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | * In-reply-to: <0DF498F0-14C6-11D8-A8E3-000A95CCCEE4@xxxxxxxxxxxx> | * References: <0DF498F0-14C6-11D8-A8E3-000A95CCCEE4@xxxxxxxxxxxx> | | On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Taylor Campbell wrote: | | I think I agree that we shouldn't need new octothorpe constructs | for arrays: In fact, the vectors-of-vectors-of-vectors... syntax | should work just fine for them: | | #( #( a0 a1 a2) | #( b0 b1 b2) | #( c0 c1 c2)) What would the rank of #( #( a0 a1 a2) #( b0 b1 b2)) be? How about #( #( a0 a1 a2) a5 ) ? How about #( #( a0 a1 a2) #( a5)) ?