bear wrote:
> Thus, our 5x4x3x2 array could be written
>
> #5*4*3*2A(...)
> or
> #5*4*3*2A<typespec>(...)
>
> or similar.

Yeah, I was thinking #5x4x3x2(...), but dropping the A poses some
problems with rank-0 arrays. (Per Bothner finally convinced me.)

There's a simple solution for PLT Scheme: Declare that boxed values are
equivalent to rank-0 arrays, just as SRFI 58 makes vectors equivalent to
rank-1 arrays. Then you can use the box literal syntax for rank-0
arrays. Kinda kludgy, but at least it sticks to prior art.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd