Re: [Gretl-devel] array functions

Issue 1 I vote for retaining the both functions strings Sc = mkarray("1 A", "2 B", "3 C", "4 D") strings Sr = mkarray("mkarray() is", "a convenient", "tool to", "make spaced", "names quickly") set seed 147  matrix mtx = mnormal(5,4) colnames(mtx,Sc) rownames(mtx,Sr) mtx Issue 2 I vote for (a) string s = "I(3), zeros(4,1), ones(4,2)" matrices M = mkarray(@s) putarray(M) Oleh 2 січня 2016, 02:37:59, від "Allin Cottrell" < cottrell(a)wfu.edu >: Given the fixes we've accumulated, and given that the New Year is upon us, I'm thinking we should do a new release soon. But before doing that I'd like to resolve a couple of points about array functions. Sorry, this is a bit long, but I'd appreciate hearing comments from anyone who's able to follow what I'm talking about! First, we have at present the semi-documented array() function (it's in the User's Guide, but not in the Function Reference), and also the undocumented mkarray() function, which lets you define an array by supplying one or more expressions which evaluate to the specified type. See http://lists.wfu.edu/pipermail/gretl-devel/2015-November/006236.html In relation to mkarray(), I floated the idea of merging this with array() in http://lists.wfu.edu/pipermail/gretl-devel/2015-December/006373.html and Jack responded enthusiastically in http://lists.wfu.edu/pipermail/gretl-devel/2015-December/006374.html However, I'm now thinking that the merger is not such a good idea, on account of the ambiguity of something like the following: <hansl> matrix m = {1, 3, 5} matrices M = array(m[2]) </hansl> Do we read this as a request to create an array with 3 empty matrix slots, or as a request to create an array with one member, namely the second element of m, taken as a 1 x 1 matrix? Note that if we did not merge the two functions, then matrices M = array(m[2]) would unambiguously select the first of these alternates, while matrices M = mkarray(m[2]) would unambiguously select the second. We could just legislate that one of these interpretations is favoured, in which the user wanting the other one would have to take an extra step: scalar n = m[2] matrices M = array(n) # OR matrix m2 = m[2] matrices M = array(m2) But I think it may be cleaner to retain both functions (and of course, document both). Second issue: at present the "print" command as applied to an array gives fairly minimal information. For example, the input <hansl> strings S = mkarray("happy", "new", "year") print S </hansl> produces the output ? print S Array of strings, length 3 But we also have the undocumented function putarray(), which gives a basic printout of the array members, as in ? putarray(S) happy new year Here, I'd like to canvas the options (a) keep what we have right now and document putarray(), or (b) make the "print" command do what putarray() does, and scrap putarray(). (Bear in mind that the array in question might contain huge matrices rather than short strings.) Let me note that both of these array-printing options are probably best considered as relevant to writers of function packages, primarily as debugging tools. If you really want to "pretty print" an array you would probably want to write your own function. Allin _______________________________________________ Gretl-devel mailing list Gretl-devel(a)lists.wfu.edu http://lists.wfu.edu/mailman/listinfo/gretl-devel