David Rush wrote:

>Per Bothner <xxxxxx@bothner.com> writes:
>
>>A modest but not order-or-magnitude difference on a non-optimizing
>>implementation is not does not IMO justify a less natural api.
>>    --Per Bothner
>>
>I would contend that is it a *more* natural API. I find it just as
>annoying as the compiler finds it inefficient to scan past an unknown
>number of arguments to find something that should *always* be there.
>
Of your two suggestions:

     1 (array-set! a val dim0 dim1 ... dimn)
     2 (array-set! a (array-index dim0 dim1 ... dimn) val)

I can see some appeal in (2), but I do dislike (1).

The main problem with (2) is that it adds a new concept - an
"index object" data-type.

	--Per Bothner