| Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 18:21:49 -0800 (PST)
 | From: bear <xxxxxx@sonic.net>
 |
 | On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
 |
 | Thus, our 5x4x3x2 array could be written
 |
 | #5*4*3*2A(...)
 | or
 | #5*4*3*2A<typespec>(...)
 |
 | or similar.  I think this is better enough in terms of being able
 | to express zero-size dimensions, enhanced human-readability and
 | maintainability that I wouldn't object to the increased
 | verbosity. It is not compatible with the CL prior art, but makes up
 | for it by being dog-easy to understand.

It does look readable.  There are several variations possible:

#<dim1>*<dim2>*...A (...)	        #2*3A ((a b c) (d e f))
#<dim1>*<dim2>*...A:<type> (...)	#2*3A:fixi-8 ((-1 0 1) (1 0 1))

#A<dim1>*<dim2>*... (...)		#A2*3 ((a b c) (d e f))
#A<dim1>*<dim2>*...:<type> (...)	#A2*3:fixn-16 ((2 0 1) (5 4 2))

#<rank>A<dim1>*<dim2>*... (...)		#2A2*3 ((0 1 2) (d e f))
#<rank>A<dim1>*<dim2>*...:<type> (...)	#2A2*3:fixn-8 ((0 1 2) (3 4 5))

#<rank>A (...)				#2A ((a b) (c d))
#<rank>A:<type> (...)			#2A:fixi-16 ((-1 0) (0 1))

Notice that all but the first example pair are unambiguous with each
other; and Common-Lisp arrays would be compatible when input.  For
output, one of the middle forms would be used.

 | >Specifying the dimensions also permits a convenient shorthand for
 | >repetitive arrays: If there aren't enough elements for a
 | >dimension, simply repeat the last element. For example, #100(1) is
 | >shorthand for #(1 1 1 1 ... 1)
 |
 | True that.  I think I like this idea better than the current
 | proposal.