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.
bear wrote: > The dope-vectored syntax can handle both of these cases. > We can write > > #A <val> for a zero-dimensional array, just as the > current proposal recommends, and > #0*3*2A() for a rank-3 array with one zero dimension. > > Honestly, I'm not really sure how important it is to get these cases > right, although together they're a powerful argument for the > dope-vectored syntax. > > My question is, how useful are such things as static arrays? Yeah, I'm not sure about that either. I've never encountered a zero-rank array before, and I've never seen an array with zero "columns," only zero "rows" at the outermost dimension. (Except for Common Lisp, I don't think I've ever used a language that even allows them, and I didn't know CL could do it until today.) I suggested the shape-specified array mainly because it's consistent with the CL & PLT vector notation and because I find it easier to read than rank-specified arrays. For "normal" arrays, the shape is often redundant, but I think it's closer to "good" redundancy than "bad." The fact that it allows proper specification of 0-by-N arrays is more of a nitpicky detail (albeit one that satisfies my obsessive-compulsive tendencies). Properly specifying the shape is more important for arrays that can grow or otherwise vary in size. That's not something that immutable arrays can do, although it becomes important if you use them to seed mutable arrays via copying. Not a big deal, but I'd rather do it right than to aim for CL compatibility. (I'm surprised that CL didn't do it the "right" way in the first place.) -- Bradd W. Szonye http://www.szonye.com/bradd