On Mon, Sep 25, 2000 at 06:30:22PM -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
> > Well, this shows that you entirely miss the problem of cryptocontexts.
> > Context is determined by the "environment" of the operation, not by
> > the operation. Context is propagated:
> >
> > the-left-hand-side-of-assignment ---> the-right-hand-side-of-assignment
>
>
> so what is wrong with the statement '@y = 3*@x;' then ?
That other constructs *also* create an array context, in which the
behaviour of multiplication you propose is not appropriate.
> > Changing Perl in this respect will make one particular mode of
> > operation a tiny bit simpler, but (without major changes to
> > cryptocontexting - <PLUG> see for example my interview on perl.com
> > </PLUG>) will make life much harder in other modes of operation.
> I think major changes are what we aree talking about here.
I did not see any viable proposal on changing things in a major way.
To design such a change is a *major* work. We need to keep a lot of
possible combinations with other features in mind, and understand all
the ramifications and desired/undesired interaction. We need
insight. We need to balance the tradeoffs.
I do not think we made *any* step in the correct direction yet.
> > Remember: do you do your system mainainance in Mathematica? Why?
> > Remember that Wolfram *wanted* you to do this? Perl5 is much better
> > balanced. You are pulling the blanket to your side of the bed.
>
> I am not sure what point you are trying to make about Mathematica? I
> have read intevrviews with Woldfram ,he is clearky an egomanica and
> thinks everything should be an expression, but I am not sure he
> was arguing for system management in Mathematica.
I did not mean interviews. 10 years ago I read the manual. It was
clearly there.
Ilya
