On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 11:25 AM, Mike Gran <spk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> From: Noah Lavine <noah.b.lav...@gmail.com> > > I haven't worked with the array functionality, so I might be missing > > something, but I don't see why this is natural for array-ref. > > One could imagine a Matlab-like syntax where array-ref has to have > the same number of indices as the underlying array, but, if an > index were replaced with a symbol, it would return a slice. > > if np is [[1, 2, 3], [4, 5, 6], [7, 8, 9]] > (array-ref np 1 1) -> 5 > (array-ref np 1 :) -> [4, 5, 6] > (array-ref np : 1) -> [[2], [5], [8]] > Yes, that would be cool. But I'm not arguing that we shouldn't have some cool array-slicing functions - I'm just saying that they might belong in a separate function, not in array-ref. > Or maybe that's already in Scheme. I'll admit I've never done matrices > in scheme. > As far as I know, there's no standard Scheme way to do arrays. I haven't done arrays or matrices in Scheme either, so don't take what I say too seriously. I would like to do it some time, but it'll probably only happen if I need to do a lot of array programming for work some time. I think the only way to get the interface right is to have someone write some serious array-processing software in Guile, and then basically do whatever they say. :-) Noah
