Hello All.
Nelson wrote:
If guile introduces full-fledged support of arrays for numeric
computing, and for communicating with external libraries,
About which I don't have much comment. He then wrote:
The GNU gawk developers are currently working on similar extensions to
the code world
Hello again,
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 4:01 AM, Daniel Llorens daniel.llor...@bluewin.chwrote:
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
On Mar 1, 2013, at 03:42, Noah Lavine wrote:
There should still be an operator that splits in other ways, but I agree that
we can shortcut that in many cases.
One think I like about the frame / cell split is that you know that the result
will have the same frame. So I imagine an operator
On Fri 01 Mar 2013 10:01, Daniel Llorens daniel.llor...@bluewin.ch writes:
scheme@(guile-user) ,optimize (vector-ref #(1 2 3) 0)
$1 = 1
scheme@(guile-user) ,optimize (array-ref #(1 2 3) 0)
$2 = (array-ref '#(1 2 3) 0)
File a bug for this case, this sort of thing is totally fixable :)
What
On Feb 22, 2013, at 01:22, Noah Lavine wrote:
I agree about the speed issue, but I hope it will get better soon. The RTL VM
will fix some of it, and native compilation will fix more.
That's on Scheme, but there are also many optimization issues related to array
operations. Temporaries,
Hello,
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Daniel Llorens
daniel.llor...@bluewin.chwrote:
On Feb 22, 2013, at 01:22, Noah Lavine wrote:
I agree about the speed issue, but I hope it will get better soon. The
RTL VM will fix some of it, and native compilation will fix more.
That's on Scheme,
After reading through my email, I realize that I left out the most
important part - a reason *why* functions shouldn't map over arrays.
My reason is that this makes function application a more complicated
process. Right now, functions are very simple things in Scheme. If we add
automatic mapping
Hello,
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Daniel Llorens
daniel.llor...@bluewin.chwrote:
On Feb 18, 2013, at 16:55, Andy Wingo wrote:
It could make sense, yes. What do others think? What happens for
array-set!? Care to propose a patch?
Patch is attached. It looks a bit unwieldy
On Feb 18, 2013, at 16:55, Andy Wingo wrote:
It could make sense, yes. What do others think? What happens for
array-set!? Care to propose a patch?
Patch is attached. It looks a bit unwieldy because I am duplicating
scm_array_handle_pos(), and I also had to fix the recent array_ref_1
Hi Daniel,
On Wed 23 Jan 2013 10:06, Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
On Tue 22 Jan 2013 15:31, Daniel Llorens daniel.llor...@bluewin.ch writes:
On Jan 21, 2013, at 17:11, Andy Wingo wrote:
The patch attached applies over yours and is to document this function
and a couple others in the
Hi,
On Wed 23 Jan 2013 13:20, Daniel Llorens daniel.llor...@bluewin.ch writes:
In [2]: a = np.array([[1, 2, 3], [4, 5, 6], [7, 8, 9]])
In [4]: a[1]
Out[4]: array([4, 5, 6])
In [5]: a[1, 1]
Out[5]: 5
array-ref can be extended very simply to do that. It accumulates on the
position as it is
From: Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com
Hello,
On Wed 23 Jan 2013 13:20, Daniel Llorens daniel.llor...@bluewin.ch writes:
In [2]: a = np.array([[1, 2, 3], [4, 5, 6], [7, 8, 9]])
In [4]: a[1]
Out[4]: array([4, 5, 6])
In [5]: a[1, 1]
Out[5]: 5
array-ref can be extended very simply to do
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
Heya,
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]]
just in case it would [one day] matter,
From: David Pirotte da...@altosw.be
do we actually have a matrice calculus [offset based the better] lib or
binding
or
scheme package ? any pointer is welcome
There once was a package called guile-num. You can find it here.
www.nongnu.org/guile-num
But, it would take some work to get it
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com writes:
On Wed 23 Jan 2013 13:20, Daniel Llorens daniel.llor...@bluewin.ch writes:
scheme@(guile-user) (f64vector-ref #s64(1 2 3) 0)
$1 = #.#
Here you are interpreting an int64 as a double, which should work, but
this printed result is really bizarre and looks
On 19 February 2013 00:25, Mike Gran spk...@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Noah Lavine noah.b.lav...@gmail.com
Hello,
On Wed 23 Jan 2013 13:20, Daniel Llorens daniel.llor...@bluewin.ch writes:
In [2]: a = np.array([[1, 2, 3], [4, 5, 6], [7, 8, 9]])
In [4]: a[1]
Out[4]: array([4, 5, 6])
In [5]: a[1,
On Tue 22 Jan 2013 15:31, Daniel Llorens daniel.llor...@bluewin.ch writes:
On Jan 21, 2013, at 17:11, Andy Wingo wrote:
The patch attached applies over yours and is to document this function
and a couple others in the manual.
Thanks, applied and pushed to wip-generalized-vectors.
Maybe we
Hi,
On Wed 23 Jan 2013 00:27, Daniel Llorens daniel.llor...@bluewin.ch writes:
I guess I don't value that much having a specific interface just for
rank 1 objects.
I don't care much either; I don't think I have ever used the generalized
vector routines. If I wanted real polymorphism, I think
On Jan 23, 2013, at 10:06, Andy Wingo wrote:
For C, that makes sense. Something should be done for Scheme as well,
but it's not terribly urgent. Perhaps make scm_array_ref not be bound
to array-ref, and instead bind array-ref to some function that takes
two optional arguments and a rest
Hi!
Andy Wingo wi...@pobox.com skribis:
What is a vector?
Possible answers:
1. A vector is something that answers #t to vector?, which contains
some number of storage slots accessible in a mostly-O(1) way, the
number of slots is given by vector-length, and the slots can be
On Jan 21, 2013, at 17:11, Andy Wingo wrote:
Hi,
Sorry for the long delay.
Deprecating the generalized-vector functions sounds mostly sensible to
me, and the proposed semantics of array-length sound fine. Attached is
a first patch in that direction.
The changes look good to me. The
On Jan 22, 2013, at 15:31, Daniel Llorens wrote:
On Jan 21, 2013, at 17:11, Andy Wingo wrote:
I always wondered why vector-ref and vector-set! didn't do what
generalized-vector-ref and generalized-vector-set! did. I mean, they
are primitive generics. Might it make sense to allow
On Jan 22, 2013, at 21:52, Andy Wingo wrote:
Hello,
Handling stride and bounds is not a problem. The generic array handle
interface lets us do this in a straightforward way.
Certainly, but in this case, a vector is just an array of rank 1. I guess I
don't value that much having a specific
Hi,
Sorry for the long delay.
Deprecating the generalized-vector functions sounds mostly sensible to
me, and the proposed semantics of array-length sound fine. Attached is
a first patch in that direction.
However, before going further, some thoughts.
Firstly, array-set! has a different
5. Re: propose deprecation of generalized-vector-*
(Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Yes. That procedure would only make sense for one-dimensional arrays
anyway. It could just as well throw an error when passed a
multi-dimensional array, no?
I think that there should
Hi,
Daniel Llorens daniel.llor...@bluewin.ch skribis:
5. Re: propose deprecation of generalized-vector-*
(Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=)
Yes. That procedure would only make sense for one-dimensional arrays
anyway. It could just as well throw an error when passed a
multi
Hi!
Daniel Llorens daniel.llor...@bluewin.ch skribis:
today I filed a bug on generalized-vector-list
http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=12465
I remember similar bugs in the past, and I'm thinking that these functions
are redundant since we have array-ref, array-list, and so on,
Daniel Llorens daniel.llor...@bluewin.ch writes:
The only generalized-vector-? function that doesn't have a direct
array-? correspondence is generalized-vector-length. However, even for
arrays of rank 1 it is often convenient to have a function such as
(array-length a) = (car
On Sep 19, 2012, at 18:00, guile-devel-requ...@gnu.org wrote:
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 13:02:25 +0100
From: Peter TB Brett pe...@peter-b.co.uk
To: guile-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: propose deprecation of generalized-vector-*
...
It seems to me that array-length should return the first non
Hello,
today I filed a bug on generalized-vector-list
http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=12465
I remember similar bugs in the past, and I'm thinking that these functions are
redundant since we have array-ref, array-list, and so on, which also work on
strings, uniform vectors, etc.
31 matches
Mail list logo
