On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 1:08 AM, Larry Wallla...@wall.org wrote:
Nevertheless, for any major methods borrowed from Perl 6, I'm not
inclined to change them that drastically. Much more likely to
define them as sugar for the more general list operators:
.push means .=append
Larry Wall wrote:
Nevertheless, for any major methods borrowed from Perl 6, I'm not
inclined to change them that drastically. Much more likely to
define them as sugar for the more general list operators:
.push means .=append
.unshiftmeans .=prepend
.splice means
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Matthew
Waltonmatt...@matthew-walton.co.uk wrote:
Although some things may be able to be implemented far more
efficiently if they know that they're being called with infix:.= and
not with infix:..
Last I checked, Perl 6 had some types that are mutating and
Jon Lang dataweaver-at-gmail.com |Perl 6| wrote:
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:02 AM, yarynot@gmail.com wrote:
I am tickled pink to see an Array rotate method in the settings spec
S032, as I was thinking of writing up a little discussion on the very
topic.
Has there been discussion
Larry Wall larry-at-wall.org |Perl 6| wrote:
We also need to consider the dimension of referentiality. I can see
three levels here. Given
@a.mung
the .mung could return
A) a modified @a (treat @a as mutable)
B) a new array (treat @a as immutable)
C) a remapped array whose
Larry Wall larry-at-wall.org |Perl 6| wrote:
Alternately, we leave @@ (or @%) meaning ¢ and instead let some
other syntax take over the pay attention to the capture's structure
semantics from @@. Maybe it's another use for the zen slice:
pay attention to the capture's structure is a can
Daniel Ruoso daniel-at-ruoso.com |Perl 6| wrote:
So, how do I deal with a multidim array? Well, TIMTOWTDI...
my @a = 1,[2,[3,4]];
say @a[1][1][1];
say @a[1;1;1]; # I'm not sure this is correct
I think that it should be. That is, multi-dim subscript is always the
same as chained
Daniel Carrera daniel.carrera-at-theingots.org |Perl 6| wrote:
In addition, the current @a.shift is useful because it returns the
element that was removed from the array, so you can do something with it:
The change to the library synopses was checked in before you posted
that, if I recall
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 02:49:10PM -0500, John M. Dlugosz wrote:
Wow. The overarching logic for list assignment would have to compare
the containers and the arguments in the capture before doing the list
assignment to each container, in order to avoid cloning all the
containers on the
Larry Wall larry-at-wall.org |Perl 6| wrote:
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 02:49:10PM -0500, John M. Dlugosz wrote:
Wow. The overarching logic for list assignment would have to compare
the containers and the arguments in the capture before doing the list
assignment to each container, in order
I am tickled pink to see an Array rotate method in the settings spec
S032, as I was thinking of writing up a little discussion on the very
topic.
Has there been discussion on using array rotate on multi-dimensional
arrays? Being able to pass in a vector as the amount to rotate would
be useful. eg
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:02 AM, yarynot@gmail.com wrote:
I am tickled pink to see an Array rotate method in the settings spec
S032, as I was thinking of writing up a little discussion on the very
topic.
Has there been discussion on using array rotate on multi-dimensional
arrays? Being
Putting this in a new thread, as I'd like to discuss it separately
from refinements to Array.rotate
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Jon Langdatawea...@gmail.com wrote:
With a multi-dimensional array, a number of transforms can be considered:
* you can rearrange the elements along a given
I think any 1D op could be transformed to do the right thing on a
multidimensional array, with some sort or hyperop or reduction
transform. Rotate, reverse, even add/subtract can be told do your
thing along this vector and return a usefully dimensioned result.
Need to work on other things at the
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:58 AM, yarynot@gmail.com wrote:
* you can rearrange the dimensions themselves (e.g., transpose).
Reflecting on 2 or more axes creates a transposition.
No, it doesn't:
@a = (1, 2, 3; 4, 5, 6; 7, 8, 9);
Reflecting on two axes would result in:
@a = (9, 8,
Ok, There's one thing that is not clear in the thread, which is when an
array is multidimensional or not...
For instance:
@a = (1, 2, 3; 4, 5, 6; 7, 8, 9);
Will produce a flatten array, because list assignment causes flattening,
so the dimensionality was lost.
It is important to remember that
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Daniel Ruosodan...@ruoso.com wrote:
Ok, There's one thing that is not clear in the thread, which is when an
array is multidimensional or not...
For instance:
�...@a = (1, 2, 3; 4, 5, 6; 7, 8, 9);
Will produce a flatten array, because list assignment causes
Em Sex, 2009-06-12 às 11:52 -0700, Jon Lang escreveu:
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Daniel Ruosodan...@ruoso.com wrote:
Ok, There's one thing that is not clear in the thread, which is when an
array is multidimensional or not...
For instance:
@a = (1, 2, 3; 4, 5, 6; 7, 8, 9);
Will
We also need to consider the dimension of referentiality. I can see
three levels here. Given
@a.mung
the .mung could return
A) a modified @a (treat @a as mutable)
B) a new array (treat @a as immutable)
C) a remapped array whose elements refer back to @a's elements
Currently
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 04:00:10PM -0300, Daniel Ruoso wrote:
: Em Sex, 2009-06-12 às 11:52 -0700, Jon Lang escreveu:
: On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Daniel Ruosodan...@ruoso.com wrote:
: Ok, There's one thing that is not clear in the thread, which is when an
: array is multidimensional
Larry mused:
�...@a.mung
the .mung could return
A) a modified @a (treat @a as mutable)
B) a new array (treat @a as immutable)
C) a remapped array whose elements refer back to @a's elements
Currently .rotate is defined as A, but I could easily switch it to B,
I, for one, would
Damian Conway wrote:
In fact, I would even be happy with requiring @a.=push and @a.=shift, if
it meant that there were *no* special cases. One extra character is a
small price to pay for perfect SWIM (and not just Say What I Mean,
the real benefit is the other SWIM: See What I Meant).
I don't
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 01:25:23AM +0200, Daniel Carrera wrote:
Damian Conway wrote:
In fact, I would even be happy with requiring @a.=push and @a.=shift, if
it meant that there were *no* special cases. One extra character is a
small price to pay for perfect SWIM (and not just Say What I Mean,
23 matches
Mail list logo
