Hello again,
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 4:01 AM, Daniel Llorens <daniel.llor...@bluewin.ch>wrote: > > think this comes down to a more fundamental difference - I still don't > think that functions should automatically map over arrays, and you do. If > they did automatically map, then I would agree with you about array-ref, > because then arrays wouldn't be fundamentally different types from the > objects they contained. > > I actually agree here! I don't want regular scheme functions to have > things done to them around their back, it would be another language. I can > accept why you want array-ref to be strict. Indeed my approach tends to a > confusion between a 2-array of 2-arrays and a 4-array. In guile-ploy you > can see this in collapse-array ---if the verb doesn't provide an output > shape, I make an assumption. I also banish 0-rank arrays. > It seems that I misunderstood you then, and I apologize. I am very excited about the library you are proposing, and I would be happy to help in any way I can (as long as I have time...)! (I'm snipping the rest of your message because it needs more thought than I can give it right now.) > Best regards, > > Daniel > > Best, Noah
