Re: Updated fork of SRFI 122, Nonempty Intervals and Generalized Arrays Per Bothner 31 Oct 2018 21:38 UTC
On 10/31/18 1:48 PM, John Cowan wrote: > My main comment on the literals pre-SRFI is that the notation is confusing and hard to read because it's too terse and too full of @ signs, which are large and ugly. Here's my suggestion: > ... > Examples: > ... > #2u16:(1 3 4 6) ((1 2 3) (4 5 6) (7 8 9)): unsigned short matrix with dimensions [1:3, 4:6] so 3 x 3 > What do you think of this? Well, the specification does describe existing art, as implemented in at least two active implementations. I realize your proposal does not conflict with the prior art (i.e. an implementation can support both syntaxes, and it is easy to disambiguate). Still, I think any new "invention" needs to be clearly better than existing art - and while I'm inclined to agree yours is slightly more readable, I don't think it is enough of an improvement. It is also less concise, especially when lower bounds can be elided. -- --Per Bothner xxxxxx@bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/