[Gsll-devel] Introducing "Grid Structured Data"

[Mirko Vukovic]

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 at 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 at 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 at common-lisp.net
> http://common-lisp.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gsll-devel
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/gsll-devel/attachments/20100112/b40e74dc/attachment.html>