Dan Sugalski wrote:
> If you want efficiency, n-dimensional arrays really need to be a concrete
> data type all of their own. That way one big block of memory can be
> allocated and, if it's a typed array, properly sized.
I wholeheartedly agree ;)
>
> That doesn't mean that n-dimensional array
At 08:18 AM 8/29/00 +1200, Christian Soeller wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
> > That doesn't mean that n-dimensional arrays won't be just sugar over the
> > standard list-o-list structure to start, but they won't have to stay
> that way.
>
>That seems to be a possible route. Get multi-dim syntax for
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >
> >I'm thinking that a n-dim array could just be a list of lists (of lists of
> >lists of...) with the n-dim notation just being syntactic sugar (and perhaps
> >helping with optimisation too).
>
> If you want efficiency, n-dimensional arrays really need to be a concrete
>
At 10:28 AM 8/28/00 +1000, Jeremy Howard wrote:
>
>
>David L. Nicol wrote:
> > If arrays as we know them implement by using a key space restricted to
> > integers, I think a reasonable way to get matrices would be to open
> > up their key space to lists of integers.
> >
>I've been thinking along e
David L. Nicol wrote:
> If arrays as we know them implement by using a key space restricted to
> integers, I think a reasonable way to get matrices would be to open
> up their key space to lists of integers.
>
I've been thinking along exactly the same lines. There's a lot of language
issues to c
You can make multidimensional containers in perl5 by settling
on a syntax for combining all the dimensions into a key value and
using that as the key in a hash.
If arrays as we know them implement by using a key space restricted to
integers, I think a reasonable way to get matrices would be to o
