SRFI-122 Bradley Lucier (21 Oct 2015 17:49 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI-122
Arthur A. Gleckler
(21 Oct 2015 20:20 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI-122
Bradley Lucier
(23 Oct 2015 18:29 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI-122
Arthur A. Gleckler
(23 Oct 2015 18:31 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI-122
Per Bothner
(23 Oct 2015 18:53 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI-122
Arthur A. Gleckler
(08 Mar 2016 17:37 UTC)
|
Re: SRFI-122
Jamison Hope
(23 Oct 2015 18:26 UTC)
|
SRFI-122 Bradley Lucier 21 Oct 2015 17:49 UTC
Arthur: Putting together SRFI-122 and then dealing with the (relatively few) comments was really a learning experience for me. I can't finalize this to my satisfaction within the 90 days allowed. It's clear that I have a concrete vision of how arrays should work that is different from the lower-level views of previous proposals, but I have not been terribly effective in getting this vision across. Additionally, my initial proposal had a bunch of bells and whistles that I thought people would like, but which added complexity that nobody seemed to appreciate. Finally, I should add {interval|array}-permute procedures and maybe remove the {interval|array}-distinguish-one-axis procedures. The latter are important in practice, but the *-permute procedures are more fundamental (*-distinguish-one-axis is the composition of *-permute and *-curry) and of interest in their own rights. E.g., various views of a CT scan are set up via *-permute + *-curry. This is not a question of adding new routines, I think I need to have a different set of base routines to have a coherent initial SRFI. So I currently plan to withdraw the SRFI for now and resubmit later. Do you have any thoughts or comments before I do so? Thanks. Brad PS: Decided to CC this to SRFI-122 mail list in case anyone else has comments.