no feedback on srfi-164 Enhanced multi-dimensional Arrays Per Bothner (14 Dec 2018 18:02 UTC)
Re: no feedback on srfi-164 Enhanced multi-dimensional Arrays Bradley Lucier (14 Dec 2018 19:01 UTC)
Re: no feedback on srfi-164 Enhanced multi-dimensional Arrays Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (15 Dec 2018 08:55 UTC)
Re: no feedback on srfi-164 Enhanced multi-dimensional Arrays Bradley Lucier (16 Dec 2018 23:34 UTC)
Re: no feedback on srfi-164 Enhanced multi-dimensional Arrays Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (17 Dec 2018 09:22 UTC)
Re: no feedback on srfi-164 Enhanced multi-dimensional Arrays Bradley Lucier (18 Dec 2018 01:34 UTC)
Re: no feedback on srfi-164 Enhanced multi-dimensional Arrays Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (18 Dec 2018 14:40 UTC)
Re: no feedback on srfi-164 Enhanced multi-dimensional Arrays Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen (18 Dec 2018 14:44 UTC)

Re: no feedback on srfi-164 Enhanced multi-dimensional Arrays Bradley Lucier 18 Dec 2018 01:34 UTC

On 12/17/18 4:22 AM, Marc Nieper-Wißkirchen wrote:
> What about calling the concept "d-interval" instead

Generally, I find your comments about mathematical terminology too
categorical.  As you know, many times several different terms are used
to describe the same object, and, on the other side, one term is often
used to describe objects in different areas.

I don't view Wikipedia as the last word on anything, but the Wikipedia
page for "interval" talks about multi-dimensional intervals with the
same connotation that I use; this section was added in 2008 by Jorge
Stolfi, so it's survived for a while.

I don't object to your suggestion to use the term $d$-interval in the
document to characterize the objects, but I'd probably use simply
"interval-" as the prefix to the operations on them.

Brad