On Apr 16, 2013, at 00:47, Daniel Hartwig wrote:
> Is column [4] intentionally missing from all but the first set? I was
> expecting it for atleast s8vector.
I wasn't sure, but it makes sense. Then the same for bitvector, I think. What
about bytevector? Should it remain a special 'raw' type? B
On 15 April 2013 22:10, Daniel Llorens wrote:
>
> Let's please agree on a behavior so we can start closing bugs. These are all
> the objects accepted by the array interface. I've filled the table with some
> ready-made choices that I think are at least internally consistent.
>
> ; --
>
> (import
