Re: SRFI-10 syntax vs. #nA syntax

["Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd+srfi@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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
http://www.szonye.com/bradd