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

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@lists.wfu.edu
http://lists.wfu.edu/mailman/listinfo/gretl-devel