Hi It may, but I find it debatable. There is no stating in the ANSI spec that ARRAY-DIMENSION-LIMIT = or / = or < or <= ARRAY-TOTAL-SIZE-LIMIT. AFAIU, the latter is guaranteed to be the maximum number of elements in an array as per the glossary entry about "array total size" (always implementation dependent). This will warrant things like (defvar a (make-array (list d1 d2 ... dn))) (defvar da (make-array (reduce '* (array-dimensions a)) :displaced- to a)) ;;; looping over da My gut feeling is that this is a foggy corner of the ANSI spec. Given the above example, I would surmise that ARRAY-DIMENSION-LIMIT = ARRAY-TOTAL-SIZE-LIMIT is implied by the ANSI spec, but that may or may not be the case. The real issue I am not sure about is whether to include or not the limit. It has been known for DOTIMES to expand in such a way to make the counter (at least internally) reach the limit. In any case that was my unstated rationale for the definition. If people are more confortable using ARRAY-DIMENSION-LIMIT. In this case, I think the definition should look like (deftype array-index () `(integer 0 (,array-dimension-limit))) as A-D-L is already the upper exclusive limit. Cheers Marco On Feb 28, 2008, at 12:09 , Nikodemus Siivola wrote:
The ARRAY-INDEX definition seems slightly suspect -- I believe it should be:
(deftype array-index () `(integer 0 (,(1- array-dimension-limit))))
Cheers,
-- Nikodemus _______________________________________________ cdr-discuss mailing list cdr-discuss@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cdr-discuss
-- Marco Antoniotti