This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 58 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 58 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Bradd W. Szonye wrote: >arrays, however. For those, I prefer something much terser. The proposed >syntax is almost good enough; however, I would rather it specify the >array /dimensions/ rather than rank. That's more consistent with >existing extensions, like PLT's #n(...) syntax for vectors. Now there's an interesting thought. We could just give the dope vector directly at the array definition for static arrays. That would scotch the zero-size dimension problem with the notation and it would also be more readable. We already have a (sort-of) convention that a number preceding a prefix code is an argument to the code; what about multiple numbers? Thus, our 5x4x3x2 array could be written #5*4*3*2A(...) or #5*4*3*2A<typespec>(...) or similar. I think this is better enough in terms of being able to express zero-size dimensions, enhanced human-readability and maintainability that I wouldn't object to the increased verbosity. It is not compatible with the CL prior art, but makes up for it by being dog-easy to understand. >Specifying the dimensions also permits a convenient shorthand for >repetitive arrays: If there aren't enough elements for a dimension, >simply repeat the last element. For example, #100(1) is shorthand for >#(1 1 1 1 ... 1) True that. I think I like this idea better than the current proposal. Bear