Hello again,


On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 4:01 AM, Daniel Llorens <daniel.llorens@bluewin.ch>wrote:

> > think this comes down to a more fundamental difference - I still don't
> think that functions should automatically map over arrays, and you do. If
> they did automatically map, then I would agree with you about array-ref,
> because then arrays wouldn't be fundamentally different types from the
> objects they contained.
>
> I actually agree here! I don't want regular scheme functions to have
> things done to them around their back, it would be another language. I can
> accept why you want array-ref to be strict. Indeed my approach tends to a
> confusion between a 2-array of 2-arrays and a 4-array. In guile-ploy you
> can see this in collapse-array ---if the verb doesn't provide an output
> shape, I make an assumption. I also banish 0-rank arrays.
>

It seems that I misunderstood you then, and I apologize. I am very excited
about the library you are proposing, and I would be happy to help in any
way I can (as long as I have time...)!

(I'm snipping the rest of your message because it needs more thought than I
can give it right now.)


> Best regards,
>
>         Daniel
>
>
Best,
Noah