[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


Okay, I concede that the array/sequence issue isn't as clear cut as I made it
out to be.  I will be happy to go with Version 4 as stated, except we should
cut out any mention of COERCE.

In reply to Petersen, I think the proposal to use explicit raveling in place of
extending the sequence functions as described in Version 4 is unacceptable on
aesthetic grounds.  It makes for really ugly code.  It treats vectors
differently than arrays (since only arrays need to be raveled), which is
awkward.  It misses the fact that sequence functions like FILL and COUNT are
already generalized to arrays in non-Lisp contexts; in English we use the
generalized forms all the time, e.g., "count the number of 1's in this matrix."

I look forward to the day when I can say (FILL MY-MATRIX 0.0) and have Lisp
do the right thing.

-- Dave