Re: Junctions, Sets, and Threading.

[Luke Palmer]

Juerd writes:
> Damian Conway skribis 2005-02-22 22:13 (+1100):
> > >    @x = func($a, [EMAIL PROTECTED]);
> > That's:
> >      @x = ÂfuncÂ($a, @y);
> > But, y'know, this one almost convinces me. Especially when you consider:
> >      sub func ($i, $j, $k) {...}
> >      @x = func($a, [EMAIL PROTECTED], @z);
> 
> Naievely, I'd expect
> 
>     my @a = @b = 1..3;
>     ÂfooÂ(@a, @b)
> 
> to result in
> 
>     foo(@a[0], @b[0]),
>     foo(@a[1], @b[1]),
>     foo(@a[2], @b[2]);
> 
> but
> 
>     foo([EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED])
> 
> with the same arrays in
> 
>     foo(@a[0], @b[0]),
>     foo(@a[0], @b[1]),
>     foo(@a[0], @b[2]),
>     foo(@a[1], @b[0]),
>     foo(@a[1], @b[1]),
>     foo(@a[1], @b[2]),
>     foo(@a[2], @b[0]),
>     foo(@a[2], @b[1]),
>     foo(@a[2], @b[2]);

Hmm, this all makes me think of my proposal a few weeks back:

    Â foo(@a[$^i], @b[$^i]) Â

    Â foo(@a[$^i], @b[$^j]) Â

I've grown to believe that my proposal had some kinks in it,
particularly in the area of what kind of thing [EMAIL PROTECTED] is.  But I'm 
also
believing that something like it is becoming warranted.

Luke