In article <dcedf5e20510250919v45bdfdc6iceb8472fc2e56ce2 / mail.gmail.com>,
Cameron McBride  <cameron.mcbride / gmail.com> wrote:
>On a ruby-core thread:
>
>(in reference to http://rcrchive.net/rcr/show/260 )
>
>On 10/24/05, Ara.T.Howard <Ara.T.Howard / noaa.gov> wrote:
>> rational and complex support certainly would gain scientific users.
>
>speaking of scientific users, wouldn't something like stock NArray be
>nice in the stdlib?  It's general enough to be widely useful and not
>overly complex.
>
>I can think of one argument against it, younger rubyists might reach
>for it when it's not strictly needed - thereby negating some of the
>beautiful wizardry ruby arrays and the like can do.  

Well, perhaps we could build Hal's Ruby number questionaire into the Ruby 
install process and you wouldn't be allowed to use things like narray 
until your Ruby number reached a certain level. ;-)

>However, it'd
>give a nice generally available base to do some efficient heavy data
>lifting.
>

Personally, I'd really like it if it were in the standard lib because then 
I wouldn't have to install it on all the different machines I want to use 
it on (Currently running simulations on a Linux box, two Solaris boxen, 
and OSX).  However, I think the real pushback is that the standard ruby 
distro is getting rather large and adding something with the limited 
appeal of narray may not be such a good idea in the effort to keep Ruby 
trim.

I don't recall if narray is available as a gem or not.  As I recall the 
last time I downloaded it it was not a gem.  So gem-ifying narray would 
probably help, although I am using a version of narray that I have 
modified so it doesn't do me much good.

Phil
 ....whose Ruby number is a pathetic 75