Re: octothorpe array syntax; other comments Bradd W. Szonye 12 Nov 2003 05:15 UTC

On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 08:43:57PM -0800, bear wrote:
> I think I agree that we shouldn't need new octothorpe constructs for
> arrays:  In fact, the vectors-of-vectors-of-vectors... syntax should
> work just fine for them .... should work fine for a 2-dimensional
> array. And if you think it really has to store type information and/or
> be disjoint from one-dimensional vectors, I'd agree with Mr. Campbell
> that #,((array-of <type-expr>) ...) or ... #,(array ...) is a better
> notation .... No need to mention rank and size; those are implicitly
> given by the structure.

Agreed on all points.
Bradd W. Szonye