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.
Per Bothner wrote: > In APL, a rank-0 array is the same as a scalar. In Scheme, it would > be difficult to make them the same. One reason is mutability: a > rank-0 array in Scheme and Common Lisp is actually a cell that > contains a mutable value. That may be true in Common Lisp (I don't know it well enough to judge), but it's not currently true in RnRS+SRFI Scheme. As far as I know, only SRFI 47 mentions rank-0 arrays at all, and it uses 0 rank to describe all non-array values. That's closer to the APL meaning. > Even thpugh we talking about literals which are upposed to be > immutable, that doesn't solve the problem whether the dereferencing is > automatic or not: a 0-rank mutable array is a cell, which is different > from the value stored in it. I.e. getting its value requires some > kind of array-ref function call. An immutable value is one where > setting is prohibited (undefined), but getting uses the same functions > as for accessing a mutable value. Hence, scalar cannot be equivalent > to a rank-0 array in Scheme, even though it is the same in APL. Huh? I can't make any sense out of this. Scheme does not /define/ a rank-0 array as a boxed value; Scheme doesn't define arrays at all. And the "boxedness" of a rank-0 array cannot be fundamental, since APL equates rank-0 arrays and scalars. I don't see how you reach your conclusion (rank-0 arrays aren't scalars in Scheme) without assuming it as a premise. Why must rank-0 arrays be boxed values (cells)? That's not self-evident, nor does it seem useful, especially since APL allegedly works differently. -- Bradd W. Szonye http://www.szonye.com/bradd