Features that I would like:
  1. Compatibility with GSLL and LAPACK (and NETLIB for that matter).  When doing numerics, I would use grid (or xarray) and forget about cl-arrays.
  2. More forgiving interface in array creation: coerce supplied values to declared type
  3. syntactic sugar: refer to array subscripts using underscores: a_i_j or a_2:5_*
On that last point, I have a small utility that does the first example.  I am not sure where to post it for your review.  I  think github is overkill to post three files (asd, package, and lisp).

I am intrigued by xarrays' generic interface, so that xarrays can interface with `any type of object'.  I fail to see its use now, but that is just my lack of imagination.

On a `lack of imagination' topic, can someone give me an example of indexing that xarray has, and that the affine indexing cannot accomplish?

Thanks,

Mirko

On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Liam Healy <lhealy@common-lisp.net> wrote:
I don't think there's any doubt we all want one all-singing
all-dancing interface that provides array utility for everything in CL
that needs it.  The reason there are two starts is because we both
started in parallel without the being aware of the other's work.  The
reason that GSD only got as far as it did was because I had addressed
the complaints on this mailing list and elsewhere (including me) and I
had no more time.  I do not think of it as complete.

So the real work here is going through both sets of code and figuring
out how to unify them.  I think all the help we can get would be
welcome; I'm certainly willing to work toward the goal.

To get the ball rolling, start with a feature at a user's level that
you need; I mean by this some very specific thing that you've coded in
CL already and found to be clumsy.  Then see how each package
implements it or would implement it.  Then post to the list your
findings, together with your example if possible, to start a
discussion.  Anyone can do this; I don't think there's a need to
restrict to a "third party"; we lack a first party at the moment.  By
picking single feature(s) and working from there, we will
incrementally get to the goal we all seek.  If we try to do everything
at once or at the most abstract level, we're likely not going to get
there as quickly.

Liam

On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 11:50 AM, A.J. Rossini <blindglobe@gmail.com> wrote:
> My cursory look suggests a fair amount of similarity as well, and I
> find attractive features in both -- but want just one API!
>
> A reasonable proposal, from my highly biased perspective, would be a
> 3rd party merge of the better components of each.
>
> (I've spent time with the xarray interface, which is the source of my
> biases -- it mostly works for what I want to do, despite being a
> simplification of the lisp-matrix access approach -- which isn't bad,
> there are some lisp-matrix functionality which is strictly edge-case
> relevant...
>

_______________________________________________
Gsll-devel mailing list
Gsll-devel@common-lisp.net
http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gsll-devel