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

Re: SRFI-10 syntax vs. #nA syntax

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.

Bradd wrote:
>> I have a better solution: If the "array" has rank 0, also omit the "#"!
>> After all, that's what the Scheme writer will do when printing a scalar.
>> This solution is more obvious if you use "#" instead of "x" for the
>> bound separators, e.g.:
>>     Two dimensions  #2#3((11 12 13) (21 22 23))
>>     One dimension   #3(1 2 3)
>>     No dimensions   1

Shiro Kawai wrote:
> This conflicts with srfi-38.

Correct; that already uses #n#. I wasn't really proposing this syntax,
though, just using it for illustration. I prefer #2x3x4(....).

> Dropping 'A' might also cause some confusion with srfi-38, e.g. #3=(1
> 2 3) and #3(1 2 3), but it's a matter of degree, I guess.

I hadn't even noticed the similarity, even though my usual Scheme
supports both syntaxes. That's probably because they're used in entirely
different contexts (vectors and shared-structure lists).
Bradd W. Szonye