> On 25 Nov 2021, at 19:56, lloda <ll...@sarc.name> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 25 Nov 2021, at 19:22, Maxime Devos <maximede...@telenet.be> wrote:
>>
>> lloda schreef op do 25-11-2021 om 17:40 [+0100]:
>>> +Arrays with empty roots are not considered immutable because
>>> +@code{array-set!} operations with valid indices won't fail (since
>>> there
>>> +are no valid indices).
>>> +
>>> +@example
>>> +(array-mutable? #()) @result{} #t
>>> +@end example
>>> +@end deffn
>>
>> By this logic, shouldn't empty subarrays (*) with a possibly mutable
>> and non-empty root be considered mutable as well?
>>
>> (*) called ‘shared arrays’ in the manual
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Maxime
>
> That would make sense, I think.
>
> The test in the patch is the same one that is used to validate
> array_handle_xxx_writable_elements(), which looks only at the root and not at
> the array dimensions. Those two tests should be the same, so I'll have to
> change the test in array_handle_xxx_writable_elements().
>
> Thanks
>
> Daniel
Another option would be to rename the function to array-root-mutable?. Then the
condition would remain as is. This also makes sense because mutability isn't a
property of the array descriptor, rather it's a property of the root.
