"David L. Nicol" wrote:
Nathan Wiger wrote:
Well, this is not bad, only it's not without its problems. Say you
wanted to get your indices implicitly:
@a[getindices()];
@a[$r-get_x, $r-get_y];
@a["@{\(getindices())}"];
@a[join $",$r-get_x, $r-get_y];
Nathan Wiger wrote:
Well, this is not bad, only it's not without its problems. Say you
wanted to get your indices implicitly:
@a[getindices()];
@a[$r-get_x, $r-get_y];
@a["@{\(getindices())}"];
@a[join $",$r-get_x, $r-get_y];
Either of these could return an
"David L. Nicol" wrote:
Nathan Wiger wrote:
Well, this is not bad, only it's not without its problems. Say you
wanted to get your indices implicitly:
@a[getindices()];
@a[$r-get_x, $r-get_y];
@a["@{\(getindices())}"];
@a[join $",$r-get_x, $r-get_y];
Nathan Wiger wrote:
"David L. Nicol" wrote:
@a["$i $j $k","$a $y $z"] # two points in DN n-dim syntax
One problem that immediately jumps out at me is how to do this:
@a[[@x], [@y]];
That is, dynamically get your indices. The above seems ok when you know
them in
Jeremy Howard wrote:
That's true. I still think it's confusing to have such similar syntaxes mean
such different things. I'd also like to be able to say:
@a[[$i,$j,$k], [$x,$y,$z]]
to get two points.
Just in case anyone isn't aware of this:
using a "stuff'em into hash keys" N-dim
