On 5/10/06, Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Mark A. Biggar wrote:
Use hyper compare ops to select what you want followed by using filter
to prune out the unwanted.
filter gives you with scan:
filter (list [] @array) @array ==
first monotonically increasing run in
In the previous mail I accidentally read [=] as [=]
On 5/10/06, Markus Laire [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
filter (list [=] @array) @array ==
first monotonically non-decreasing run in @array
So @array = (1 0 -1 -2 -1 -3) == (1, -1) is monotonically non-decreasing?
This would
On 5/9/06, Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 06:07:26PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
ps. Should first element of scan be 0-argument or 1-argument case.
i.e. should list([+] 1) return (0, 1) or (1)
I noticed this in earlier posts and thought it odd that anyone
Larry Wall writes:
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 05:30:23PM +0300, Gaal Yahas wrote:
: We have a very nifty reduce metaoperator. Scans are a counterpart of
: reduce that are very useful -- they are the (preferably lazy) list
: of consecutive accumulated reductions up to the final result.
I'm
On 5/9/06, Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But this could just be because I don't (yet) grok scans.
Here's a simple example:
[+] 1,2,3,4,5
would return scalar 1+2+3+4+5 as a reduction and list (0, 1, 1+2,
1+2+3, 1+2+3+4, 1+2+3+4+5) as a scan. (0 comes from [+](), i.e. [+]
with no
Markus Laire writes:
On 5/9/06, Smylers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But this could just be because I don't (yet) grok scans.
Here's a simple example:
[+] 1,2,3,4,5
would return scalar 1+2+3+4+5 as a reduction and list (0, 1, 1+2,
1+2+3, 1+2+3+4, 1+2+3+4+5) as a scan.
That doesn't
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 04:02:35PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: I'm probably not thinking hard enough, so if anyone can come up with an
: implementation please give it :) Otherwise, how about we add this to
: the language?
Maybe that's just what reduce operators do in list context.
I love
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 11:23:48AM +0100, Smylers wrote:
So I have the list generated by the scan. And? What do I do with it?
I can't think of any situation in my life where I've been wanting such a
list.
Scans are useful when the intermediate results are interesting, as well
as when you
Gaal Yahas wrote:
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 04:02:35PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: I'm probably not thinking hard enough, so if anyone can come up with an
: implementation please give it :) Otherwise, how about we add this to
: the language?
Maybe that's just what reduce operators do in list
On 5/9/06, Austin Hastings [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Gaal Yahas wrote:
I love this idea and have implemented it in r10246. One question though,
what should a scan for chained ops do?
list [==] 0, 0, 1, 2, 2;
# bool::false?
# (bool::true, bool::true, bool::false, bool::false,
Austin Hastings wrote:
Gaal Yahas wrote:
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 04:02:35PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: I'm probably not thinking hard enough, so if anyone can come up
with an
: implementation please give it :) Otherwise, how about we add this to
: the language?
Maybe that's just what
Markus Laire wrote:
ps. Should first element of scan be 0-argument or 1-argument case.
i.e. should list([+] 1) return (0, 1) or (1)
APL defines it as the later (1).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Austin Hastings wrote:
Gaal Yahas wrote:
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 04:02:35PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: I'm probably not thinking hard enough, so if anyone can come up
with an
: implementation please give it :) Otherwise, how about we add this to
: the language?
Maybe that's just what
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 06:07:26PM +0300, Markus Laire wrote:
ps. Should first element of scan be 0-argument or 1-argument case.
i.e. should list([+] 1) return (0, 1) or (1)
I noticed this in earlier posts and thought it odd that anyone
would want to get an extra zero arg that they didn't
Gaal Yahas writes:
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 11:23:48AM +0100, Smylers wrote:
So I have the list generated by the scan. And? What do I do with
it? I can't think of any situation in my life where I've been
wanting such a list.
Scans are useful when the intermediate results are
Mark A. Biggar writes:
Austin Hastings wrote:
Gaal Yahas wrote:
list [==] 0, 0, 1, 2, 2;
# bool::false?
# (bool::true, bool::true, bool::false, bool::false, bool::false)
(And I'm with Smylers on this one: show me a useful example, please.)
Well the above
Mark A. Biggar wrote:
Austin Hastings wrote:
Gaal Yahas wrote:
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 04:02:35PM -0700, Larry Wall wrote:
: I'm probably not thinking hard enough, so if anyone can come up
with an
: implementation please give it :) Otherwise, how about we add
this to
: the language?
Austin Hastings wrote:
I'm thinking that APL is dead for a reason. And that every language
designer in the world has had a chance to pick over its dessicated
bones: all the good stuff has been stolen already. So while scans may
fall out as a potential side-effect of reduce, the real question
Smylers wrote:
Mark A. Biggar writes:
Austin Hastings wrote:
Gaal Yahas wrote:
list [==] 0, 0, 1, 2, 2;
# bool::false?
# (bool::true, bool::true, bool::false, bool::false, bool::false)
(And I'm with Smylers on this one: show me a useful example,
Gaal Yahas skribis 2006-05-08 17:30 (+0300):
We have a very nifty reduce metaoperator. Scans are a counterpart of
reduce that are very useful -- they are the (preferably lazy) list of
consecutive accumulated reductions up to the final result. But I can't
think of a convenient way of expressing
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 04:44:51PM +0200, Juerd wrote:
To make sure I understand what you mean, not as a proposed
implementation:
my @input = (...);
my @scan = map { [op] @input[0..$_] } [EMAIL PROTECTED];
Is this what you mean?
Hm, could that be written as:
my @scan =
Gaal Yahas skribis 2006-05-08 17:58 (+0300):
(Is there special sugar to make @input be the last index when used in a
range, or did you mean ..^ ?)
I meant @input.last, or probably @input.indices (or .keys?) instead of
the entire range, and @input.first instead of the first 0.
Juerd
--
On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 05:30:23PM +0300, Gaal Yahas wrote:
: We have a very nifty reduce metaoperator. Scans are a counterpart of
: reduce that are very useful -- they are the (preferably lazy) list of
: consecutive accumulated reductions up to the final result. But I can't
: think of a
23 matches
Mail list logo
