[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: CL-Cleanup@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
- Subject: AREF-1D
- From: Kent M Pitman <KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>
- Date: Fri, 24 Apr 87 01:52 EDT
- Cc: KMP@STONY-BROOK.SCRC.Symbolics.COM
- In-reply-to: <8704240436.AA06857@bhopal.edsel.com>
The reason for the name clash is that I wasn't looking at Steele's
corrections list at the time I generated the proposal. It was on an
independent list of Macsyma-related issues of my own. Sorry for the
The fact that the row-major feature is built into more functions than
just those which have the phrase "ROW-MAJOR" in them (eg, displaced
arrays) leads me to believe that the phrase ROW-MAJOR is just redundant.
Also, I don't like the phrase "ROW-MAJOR" because it feels very 2d
because the term row seems to apply to 2d matrices. I know it's got a
perfectly well-defined way of generalizing, but...
Also, I thought a name with "1D" in it would emphasize that this was
a non-standard access. I guess "ROW-MAJOR" does that, too, though.
In any case, although I did have reasons for the choice of name, I'm
not passionate about them. Since there's already a precedent for the
other name, I'm happy to go with that. ROW-MAJOR-AREF is fine.
By the way, I think an inverse to ARRAY-ROW-MAJOR-INDEX might nicely
round out the set of operations which took an offset and either a list
of dimensions or an array and returned the standard reference pattern
might nicely round out the set of operations in this family...
- From: Guy Steele <gls@Think.COM>
- From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Jon L White)