On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 4:06 AM, Jon Harper <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 4:32 AM, Slava Pestov <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Kobi, >> >> Do not override the nth and set-nth generic words for this purpose. >> These words should only be used for collections with integer indices >> 0..length-1. > Even if bounds-check is also overriden to correctly handle the array > of indices ? > Why can't multiarrays be part of the sequence protocol when they reuse > 90% of the code ? Doesn't this mean that the sequence protocol should > be broadened ?
There's more to the sequence protocol than bounds checking. Right now, you're guaranteed to be able to take the length of any sequence and address its contents from 0 to (length - 1), and pretty much every sequence combinator is built on this assumption. If you want to reuse an existing protocol for n-dimensional arrays, the more general assocs protocol would make more sense, using index arrays as keys. -Joe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway. ONE MASSIVE PRIZE to the lucky parental unit. See the prize list and enter to win: http://p.sf.net/sfu/thinkgeek-promo _______________________________________________ Factor-talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/factor-talk
