Hello,

Le 29/03/2010 11:40, Bruno JOFRET a écrit :
Hi,

Please find attached SEP #40 talking about Cell Arrays.
This SEP is targeting Scilab 6.0 as we will introduce a new syntax for cells.

Any feedbacks are welcome.

6 years after, it is very (very) late to comment or make any suggestion.
Yet, Scilab 6.0 is not yet released, so i hope that this won't be too late for the essential: Indexation (extraction and insertion) with {} should really not be introduced.

This message comes after first comments and rational recently posted there:
http://mailinglists.scilab.org/Scilab-users-a-i-j-specific-extraction-syntax-with-should-not-be-introduced-tp4033484.html

As another way to explain why {} extractors and inserters must not be introduced,
we may follow the pages of the current version of the SEP available here:
http://gitweb.scilab.org/?p=scilab.git;a=blob;f=SEP/SEP_040_cell_arrays.odt

 * After a cell array *c = { %pi %i %t ; %z "abc" list(1,%s)}* has been
   (very friendly) built with the new {} heterogeneous concatenator:

     o the *extraction of the content of any single cell component*
       should be direct:
         + with Scilab < 6 : c(5).entries  or c(1,3).entries
         + with Scilab >=6: c(5) or c(1,3)

         + with Scilab < 6 : c(5)  or c(1,3)
         + with Scilab >=6: {c(5)} or {c(1,3)}
           Whenever any wrapped-in-cell answer would be needed, it
           still can be obtain by packaging the answer, instead of
           implementing a "dereferencing" way to address a content
           through a very specific {} extractors and inserters when
           unwrapped values are required.

     o As well, *the insertion into a single component must be direct,
       and any type of data should be accepted*:
         + Scilab < 6: c(5).entries = ["Hi" "Hello"]  or c(1,3).entries
           = ["Hi" "Hello"]
         + Scilab >=6: c(5) = ["Hi" "Hello"]  or c(1,3) = ["Hi" "Hello"]
           So, page 4:
             # c = cell([4,3,2]); for i = 1:24, c*{i}* = i, end
               becomes
             # c = cell([4,3,2]); for i = 1:24, c*(i)* = i, end

     o Is there any reason to not address cells components simply as we
       do for matrix components, directly with (i,j,..)? I do not find any.
       The .entries addressing was needed due to the encoding of cells
       as mlists. But what could motivate keeping any intermediate
       level to access to the values of data, for extraction as well as
       for insertion? I do not see a single reason.
       As noted here-above, from the fact that the LHS object is a cell
       array, any data type can be accepted and inserted, without any
       prior packaging of the RHS as a cell array. The wrapping in cell
       must be done internally by the insertion process.
     o Then, Scilab 6: c(5) = {"abcd"}  will insert a true elementary
       cell as the c(1,3) c's component, not the string "abcd". This is
       a straightforward and very clear syntax. What is in RHS
       parameter is just values that are inserted in the array, *as is*.

 * *The SEP does not present **_insertion and extraction of multiple
   components_ in a once*.
   After still *c = { %pi %i %t ; %z "abc" list(1,%s)}, *the current
   implementation is the following:

     o *multiple insertion*: *a) of corresponding multiple components*:
         + c(:,1) = { %e "zz" }
           assigns %e to c(1,1) and "zz" to c(2,1) /in a distributive
           way/!
            1. This kind of distributive assignment is a very great new
               feature!!
            2. The assignment is transparently done using /linearized
               indices/. unmatching sizes/formats of the recipient and
               of the source is smoothly handled. Here, a row of cells
               feeds a column of cells. This is nice as is! This
               behavior could also be implemented with other types of
               RHS containers, at least for a list. So

         + c(:,1) = list(%e, "zz")
           should do the same. But it does not:
           --> c(:,1) = list(%e, "zz")
           Wrong insertion: A Cell expected: use {...} instead of (...).
           This feature might be implemented later. This is not so
           urgent as removing the {} addressing.

           If this feature is implemented, how will it be possible to
           insert a list in a single component?
             # c(3) = list(list(%t)) // will do it. Or if the size of
               the list is not 1, even
             # c(3) = list(%t, %z)    // mismatch could be handled
               softly in a comprehensive way

         + c([1 2]) = { %e "zz" } does the same using a vector of
           linearized indices. Great!

     o *multiple insertion*: *b) of a single component to be replicated*:
         + c([1 4]) = {"abc"} inserts the same "abc" string at the 1st
           and 4th positions in c. This is great! The only thing is
           that the syntax should become simply
           c([1 4]) = "abc"
           In the final implementation that we suggest and hope, c([1
           4]) = {"abc"} will be as well possible but will insert the
           cell {"abc"} instead of the string "abc" at the desired
           positions.

     o *multiple extraction:*
         + c(1,:)   returns{%pi %i %t}: this is great! By default, this
           can't be anything else than a cell array.
           No c{1,:} syntax is required
         + c(:,3)   returns {%t ; list(1,%s)}: still great and expected!
           No c{3,:} syntax is required
         + c(1:2,[1 3]) returns {%pi %t ; %z list(1,%s)} as expected.
           No c{1:2,[1 3]} syntax is required
         + with a linearized index: c([2 5 3]) returns {%z ; %t ; %i}
           column cell, as with matrices addressed with a linearized
           index a column is returned: Great!
           No c{[2 5 3]} syntax is required

 * Finally, *what about conversions between a cell array and a list?
   *We think that this kind of conversion between these 2 types of
   containers should be available in Scilab.
     o *list => cell* :
         + If it becomes possible to feed a cell array (or subarray)
           with a list as discussed above, then this kind of conversion
           won't need anything else. We will just have to do:
           c = cell(2,3); c(:) = list(%pi, %z, %i, "abc", %t, list(1,%s))

         + Otherwise: *makecell() *should be kept and renamed
           *list2cell()*, instead of being removed. It already works as
           expected :
           L = list(%pi, %z, %i, "abc", %t, list(1,%s));
           --> makecell([2 3], L(:))
             ans  =
              [1x1 constant]  [1x1 polynomial]  [1x1 constant]
              [1x1 string  ]  [1x1 boolean   ]  [    list    ]

     o *cell => list:*
         + The present special extraction with {:} does it, but this
           syntax must be removed. Keeping it only for that is meaningless:
           --> typeof(c{:})
             ans  =
             list
         + A new *cell2list()* converter should rather be implemented.

Hoping that this will convince you to remove the {} complicated addressing and the related data wrapping,

Best regards
Samuel Gougeon

_______________________________________________
dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/dev

Reply via email to