no feedback on srfi-164 Enhanced multi-dimensional Arrays
Per Bothner 14 Dec 2018 18:01 UTC
I haven't gotten *any* feedback on srfi 164.
I think it's a nice API: It is compatible with and extends srfi 25 and srfi 4;
it is efficiently implementable, and it has the advantage of being relatively small
while still being very "powerful". But that's just my opinion.
It might be helpful to have a standard "range" api. SRFI 164 doesn't *require* a
range type, but it is helpful, since certain functions that create a "view" can
be optimized if the arguments are ranges. Cowan has mentioned a range API:
However, it is not a specification - arguments aren't even specified.
(It is also way too big an API in my opinion.)
--
--Per Bothner
xxxxxx@bothner.com http://per.bothner.com/
