[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.

Per Bothner wrote:
> In Scheme ... arrays are [generally] mutable.  A Scheme array contains
> a number of "locations" (or "cells" or "places"), where the number is
> equal to the product of the dimensions.  Each location contains a
> value; if the array is mutable (the normal case) then the contained
> value may be changed using array-set!  Hence we must distinguish
> between the location and the value stored in it.  A rank-0 array
> contains 1 location, which for consistency must also be mutable
> (except for literal arrays).   Hence, a rank-0 array is not equivalent
> to the value stored in its location.

OK, that makes sense (assuming that the product of no values is 1, which
I suppose is reasonable). Note, however, that the SRFI 47 constructors
do not permit the creation of rank-0 arrays, and it even uses rank 0 to
indicate that an object isn't an array at all, so I don't mind if you
can't create them with the literal syntax either.
Bradd W. Szonye