At 06:21 PM 8/29/00 +0000, Jim Edwards wrote:
> >
> >
> > Regardless, you can already do this in perl 5, and will undoubtedly be able
> > to do it in perl 6, with source filters.
>
>So why do we have to do
>$ip1=$i+1; # my pdl pet peave
>$f->slice("(0),$ip1,$i");
>
>instead of
>
>$f((0),$i+1,$i); # substitute your favorite syntax here
>
>?
Because source filters are:
1) Relatively new (5.005 IIRC, but I could be mis-remembering)
2) A bloody pain in the neck to write
Lots of things could use 'em if they were easier to do. That's one of the
goals of perl 6, I think.
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk
- Proposed RFC for matrix indexing and slicing Buddha Buck
- Re: Proposed RFC for matrix indexing and slicing Karl Glazebrook
- Re: Proposed RFC for matrix indexing and slicin... Dan Sugalski
- Re: Proposed RFC for matrix indexing and sl... Karl Glazebrook
- Re: Proposed RFC for matrix indexing an... Dan Sugalski
- Access to the perl6 parser Jim Edwards
- Re: Access to the perl6 parser Dan Sugalski
- Re: Access to the perl6 pa... Jim Edwards
- Re: Access to the perl6 pa... Dan Sugalski
- Re: Access to the perl6 pa... Christian Soeller
- Re: Access to the perl6 pa... Jim Edwards
- Re: Proposed RFC for matrix indexi... Christian Soeller
- Re: Proposed RFC for matrix in... Karl Glazebrook
- Re: Proposed RFC for matri... Nathan Torkington
- Re: Proposed RFC for matri... Karl Glazebrook
- Re: Proposed RFC for matri... Dan Sugalski
- Re: Proposed RFC for matri... Jeremy Howard
- Re: Proposed RFC for matri... Bart Lateur
- Re: Proposed RFC for matri... c . soeller
