[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [office-formula] More conflict - array and its subtypes
I notice that the expression "An array is a set of rows and the same number of columns" is ambiguous and "that contain one or more values" is even more so. I think it is meant to say that every row of an array has the same number of columns, not necessarily the same number as the number of rows. The array element at a particular row and column location presumably has at most one value. (I will not here attempt to deal with the case where a table cell holds an array/matrix that is more than an 1 x 1.) A row vector is equivalent to an array with only one row, and a column vector is equivalent to an array with only one column in this regard. One could consider either of row vector and column vector to be simply equivalent to a list or enumeration as well (and, as we have also seen, we can do so when taking elements of arrays in row-major or column-major order too). - Dennis -----Original Message----- From: Patrick Durusau [mailto:patrick@durusau.net] Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 11:55 To: office-formula@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [office-formula] More conflict - array and its subtypes Greetings, Reading "array" at 3.9: An array is a set of rows and the same number of columns that contain one or more values. There is a maximum of one value per intersection of row and column. The intersection of a row and column may contain no value. But, back at 2.3 Non-Scalar Evaluation, we rather clearly describe "inline arrays" as being both that sort of array as well as only holding row or column vectors, which is excluded by the definition of array in 3.9. Is the term "inline" meaningful for some reason? Thinking that we have: Arrays - see 3.9 SubType - one row array SubType - one column array SubType - singleton array And we need to untangle the "equivalence" of array and reference. Particularly since a reference obviously does *not* have to be to a square of columns and rows. That shoots any "equivalence" of arrays and references rather squarely in the head. Thinking one way around this is to say that a reference may return an array, or any of its subtypes (as listed above, subject to expansion). But returning an array (or its subtypes) and equivalence are different concepts. Any subtypes of array that I am missing? (Noting that one column non-scalar result is the same thing as one column array, etc.) This really does have the potential to make the draft shorter, more concise and clearer. Hope everyone is having a great day! Patrick -- Patrick Durusau patrick@durusau.net Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34 Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps) Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300 Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]