Re: [PATCH] Exorcise "zero-dimensional" arrays (Was: Re: Should array_length() Return NULL)

On 29/03/13 13:12, Brendan Jurd wrote:
> On 28 March 2013 20:34, Dean Rasheed <dean(dot)a(dot)rasheed(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>> Is the patch also going to allow empty arrays in higher dimensions
>> where not just the last dimension is empty?
> It doesn't allow that at present.
>
>> It seems as though, if
>> it's allowing 1-by-0 arrays like '{{}}' and '[4:4][8:7]={{}}', it
>> should also allow 0-by-0 arrays like '[4:3][8:7]={}', and 0-by-3
>> arrays like '[4:3][11:13]={}'.
> I think the array literal parser would reject this on the grounds that
> the brace structure doesn't match the dimension specifiers. You could
> modify that check to respect zero length in dimensions other than the
> innermost one, but it's hard to say whether it would be worth the
> effort.
>
> It might be instructive to hear from somebody who does (or intends to)
> use multidim arrays for some practical purpose, but I don't even know
> whether such a person exists within earshot of this list.
>
> Cheers,
> BJ
>
>
Multiple dimension arrays. 'might' be something I may need, or at least
usefully use in my current project.

I am not ready to do the database design to that detail yet.

However, I know I will need to do 'clever'(TM) things with multiple
images areas on images, and possibly group several images together (and
still access their individual image areas). So potentially arrays of
dimension 2 or greater may be useful. Certainly, some images will not
have any image areas defined, some arrays might be empty.

Cheers,
Gavin