Per Bothner <xxxxxx@bothner.com> writes:
> Of your (David's) 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).

Fair enough. I initially disliked it, too, but I have grown used to it
through quite a bit of personal code that makes similiar changes for
mutating operators.

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

Yep, but it actually adds value, I think. Sooner or later
people are going to want slicing; having the index-object present
helps pave the way for that.

david rush
--
Life's but a walking shadow; a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing. -- Macbeth Act 5, scene 5