-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 02:10:12PM +0100, Daniel Llorens wrote: > > On 21 Nov 2016, at 13:55, <to...@tuxteam.de> <to...@tuxteam.de> wrote: > > > > it (numpy, to mention a popular one. You don't need to say A[i, :, :], > > > you can just say A[i].). However, the maintainers spoke against this, > > > so these functions need different names. > > > > Understandable... but a pity, really. > > yeah... > > > Uh, oh. That's NSFW material ;-) My head exploded (faint memories > > of APL). > > check out ‘J for C programmers’, I think it has good explanations. > > > I do like slice. But I'm perhaps off because I don't quite understand > > your mumblings about "the rank of the result would be positive". > > What do they return otherwise? Do they throw an exception? > > They return the element itself. E.g. > > (array-from #2((a b) (c d)) 0) => #1(a b) > (array-from #2((a b) (c d)) 0 0) => a > > the rank of the second result would be zero (so #0(a)) if the result was > always a ‘slice’. This is what I meant. There's a variant which always > returns a ‘slice’: > > (array-from* #2((a b) (c d)) 0) => #1(a b) > (array-from* #2((a b) (c d)) 0 0) => #0(a)
OK, got it. So should "slice" prevail, it'd make sense to "invert" the star (array-slice corresponding to array-from* and vice-versa)? Slice still feels way better to me, but I'll take them with any name :-D Had I to look it up by name without any idea of what to look for, I'd never come up with array-from, whereas I'd have a faint chance of coming up with array-slice; that said, the most ergonomic choice would still be (an extension of) array-ref et al. or some close relative. thanks - -- tomás -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlgy9XUACgkQBcgs9XrR2kY9zQCeMkQZK2OPXtAlTMC56dW0HLDg Y9sAnR0tKAJ8C6iQYwbKlLQh4fBBIB9A =eb31 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
