Arrays: new and old keys, i

[John Vokey]

On 11-Sep-08, at 7:24 PM, use-revolution-request at lists.runrev.com wrote:

> On Sep 11, 2008, at 5:55 PM, Björnke von Gierke wrote:
>
>> Now I understand, I didn't consider not to tell rev how many sub
>> arrays there would be. I have no clue when this would be useful
>> though, maybe you can explain that?
>
> Sure. One thing that the ability to dynamically specify a key would do
> is open up additional algorithms. Let's take the XML for example.
>
> T
... ellipsis intentional

Can anybody explain what the new array format provides that the old  
did not?  All these bizarre examples seem not so much as exemplifying  
the ``new'' features as to leave me baffled as to what added value  
they provide.  In NONE of the supposed or alleged examples have I seen  
anything I could not do with old arrays.  So, and I mean in really  
simple language (not OOP-speak), wtf is up with these new arrays?  I  
see nothing but extra brackets.


--
Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html>

-Dr. John R. Vokey