Following up on SRFI 179
Bradley Lucier
(22 Sep 2021 22:30 UTC)
|
Re: Following up on SRFI 179
John Cowan
(24 Sep 2021 19:24 UTC)
|
Re: Following up on SRFI 179
Alex Shinn
(25 Sep 2021 13:24 UTC)
|
Re: Following up on SRFI 179
Bradley Lucier
(25 Sep 2021 16:43 UTC)
|
Re: Following up on SRFI 179
Alex Shinn
(28 Sep 2021 07:36 UTC)
|
Re: Following up on SRFI 179
Bradley Lucier
(28 Sep 2021 20:20 UTC)
|
Re: Following up on SRFI 179
Bradley Lucier
(28 Sep 2021 20:30 UTC)
|
Re: Following up on SRFI 179
Bradley Lucier
(01 Oct 2021 00:07 UTC)
|
Re: Following up on SRFI 179
Alex Shinn
(01 Oct 2021 00:43 UTC)
|
array-copy, array-stack, array-append: What should the defaults be? Bradley Lucier (02 Oct 2021 18:42 UTC)
|
Re: array-copy, array-stack, array-append: What should the defaults be?
Alex Shinn
(04 Oct 2021 08:24 UTC)
|
Re: array-copy, array-stack, array-append: What should the defaults be?
Bradley Lucier
(04 Oct 2021 14:27 UTC)
|
Re: array-copy, array-stack, array-append: What should the defaults be?
Alex Shinn
(04 Oct 2021 21:34 UTC)
|
Re: array-copy, array-stack, array-append: What should the defaults be?
Bradley Lucier
(04 Oct 2021 22:04 UTC)
|
Re: array-copy, array-stack, array-append: What should the defaults be?
John Cowan
(04 Oct 2021 22:39 UTC)
|
Re: array-copy, array-stack, array-append: What should the defaults be?
Bradley Lucier
(16 Jan 2022 18:56 UTC)
|
Re: Following up on SRFI 179
Lucier, Bradley J
(05 Oct 2021 01:04 UTC)
|
Re: Following up on SRFI 179
John Cowan
(06 Oct 2021 01:26 UTC)
|
Re: Following up on SRFI 179
Lucier, Bradley J
(06 Oct 2021 13:48 UTC)
|
Re: Following up on SRFI 179
Bradley Lucier
(05 Oct 2021 19:54 UTC)
|
array-{append|stack|inner-product}
Bradley Lucier
(21 Oct 2021 15:52 UTC)
|
On 9/25/21 9:23 AM, Alex Shinn wrote: >> 3) (array-append k a1 a2 ...) >> >> 4) (array-laminate k a1 a2 ...) > Both of these are provided by (chibi math linalg): > https://github.com/ashinn/alschemist/blob/master/chibi/math/linalg.scm > For consistency with numpy, laminate is called stack, and the axis > refers to the result dimension so has the more natural domain [0, > res-dim). > They are fairly general and I agree should be in the base library > rather than a linear algebra library. I'm working to implement these as (array-append [storage-class] k a1 a2 ...) (array-stack [storage-class] k a1 a2 ...) I'm leaning to say that if storage-class is not specified, then if a1 a2 ... all have the same storage class, then that storage class is used, otherwise generic-storage-class is used. The mutability and safety of the result is determined by the settings of (specialized-array-default-mutable?) and (specialized-array-default-safe?). This led me to think again about (array-copy array [storage-class [mutable? [safe?]]]) and the commit message of https://github.com/gambiteer/srfi-179-followup/commit/f2de257e87f341dc1edff0e7b060394bd9960349 says that 1. If the first argument to array-copy is a specialized array, then the values of omitted arguments storage-class, mutable?, and safe? are taken from the first argument, not generic-storage-class, (specialized-array-default-mutable?), and (specialized-array-default-safe?), respectively. So the new array is a true copy of the input specialized array. Any thoughts about what the defaults should be?