Re: [office-formula] More conflict - array and its subtypes

[Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>]

Dennis,

On 2/11/2010 3:12 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote:
> 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.)
>
>    
Could be, but then I was being influenced by the explicit constraint of 
"square matrices" for 5.5.2 MDETERM, and 5.5.3 MINVERSE.
> 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).
>
>    
True.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick

>   - 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)