On 3/31/26 12:42, Bradley J Lucier wrote:
> I’m trying to polish the rough edges of SRFI 231, and instead of, e.g.,
>
> (make-interval ‘#(0 3 0) ‘#(4 6 2))
>
> with the lower bounds ‘#(0 3 0) and upper bounds ‘#(4 6 2) where an interval argument is required, I plan to allow
>
> ‘#(4 (3 6) 2)
>
> Currently, I’m calling this an interval “specifier”.
This commit:

https://github.com/gambiteer/srfi-231/commit/2f21342a8e95a7c3ca65e547c6a4ba508aa6ac7d

adds the routines

     interval-specifier?
     interval->specifier

and extends the one-argument version of make-interval to accept an array
specifier instead of just a vector of upper bounds; this is a
backward-compatible change.  (One might think of a procedure
specifier->interval, but that's just make-interval.)

The next commit:

https://github.com/gambiteer/srfi-231/commit/ff2987615bcee795367fd7b0d263324116a4ae75

uses the new specifiers in a couple examples where it seemed appropriate.

I'd like to extend the array-* procedures that take intervals as
arguments to additionally allow interval specifiers as arguments.  I see
these procedures as prospects:

(make-array interval getter #\[ setter #\])
(make-specialized-array interval #\[ storage-class #\[ initial-value #\]
#\])
(specialized-array-share array new-domain new-domain->old-domain)
(array-extract array interval)
(array-broadcast array new-domain)
(list->array interval list #\[ storage-class #\[ mutable? #\] #\])
(vector->array interval vector #\[ storage-class  #\[ mutable? #\] #\])
(specialized-array-reshape array interval #\[ copy-on-failure? #f #\])

There are many interval-* procedures that take intervals as arguments,
but it doesn't make sense to me to extend them to allow interval
specifiers as arguments: If you write down the specifiers explicitly you
often can just read off the procedure results, these procedures are used
when you *don't* have a literal specification of an interval.

Any comments before I proceed?

Brad