Jeremy:
you should look at the PDL mv() and xchg() methods
and factor this into your thinking!
Karl
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
But with Fortran such things are not *needed*. Compilers are smart
enough to convert (equivalents to)
map 3*$_, 34..67
This is true, but easier (and less buggy) to say what you
exactly what you mean. 102:201:3
Anyway the idea has been proposed, it won't break
On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 11:17:40AM -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
[Cryptocontext is:]
f(3*@a)
would typically be a list context - and suddently instead of 3*(1+$#a)
you get Cmap 3*$_, @a.
This is true, what I would propose is we declare 3*(1+$#a) outmoded and
always have it mean
Karl Glazebrook wrote:
you should look at the PDL mv() and xchg() methods
and factor this into your thinking!
Actually, the RFC is based on PDL's xchg()! I forgot to document using
negative numbers to count from the last dimension--I'll add that into the
next version. Are there any other
Jeremy Howard wrote:
Karl Glazebrook wrote:
you should look at the PDL mv() and xchg() methods
and factor this into your thinking!
Actually, the RFC is based on PDL's xchg()! I forgot to document using
negative numbers to count from the last dimension--I'll add that into the
next
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
You are trading a frequently used shortcut @a == 1 + $#a for a
rarely-used-but-beautiful/intuitive semantic. I'm not sure it is a win.
It's now boiling down to a matter of opinion and we'll have to agree to
differ. Of course I use array arithmetic all the time as a
On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 05:24:55PM -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
It's now boiling down to a matter of opinion and we'll have to agree to
differ. Of course I use array arithmetic all the time as a heavy PDL
user.
...Do you say you are confused by using vectors (=scalars) instead of
arrays?
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
Moveover,
$x = 3 * @_;
suddently being equivalent to
$x = @_;
does not look very promising...
Why are these equivalent? RFC 82 only applies in list context. Am I missing
something?
On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 09:52:51AM +1100, Jeremy Howard wrote:
$x = 3 * @_;
suddently being equivalent to
$x = @_;
does not look very promising...
Why are these equivalent? RFC 82 only applies in list context. Am I missing
something?
Yes, the proposal to make
Karl Glazebrook wrote:
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
You are trading a frequently used shortcut @a == 1 + $#a for a
rarely-used-but-beautiful/intuitive semantic. I'm not sure it is a win.
It's now boiling down to a matter of opinion and we'll have to agree to
differ. Of course I use array
On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 10:01:11AM +1100, Jeremy Howard wrote:
It's now boiling down to a matter of opinion and we'll have to agree to
differ. Of course I use array arithmetic all the time as a heavy PDL
user.
It's not just for number-crunchers either. Array notation greatly simplifies
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
Are you trying to convince me/us that is going to be used often?
Yes, I am. You made the unsupported statement that array operations are
rarely used. I'm suggesting otherwise (although to say that they're rarely
used in Perl 5 is a tautology, of course!).
Array
On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 10:41:07AM +1100, Jeremy Howard wrote:
a) You can *already* use vectors as scalars in Perl;
That's not what RFC 82 is proposing.
Who cares? This already works...
b) What we are discussing is Perl, not Mathematica, J, PDL, and so
forth. These languages have
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 05:24:55PM -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
It's now boiling down to a matter of opinion and we'll have to agree to
differ. Of course I use array arithmetic all the time as a heavy PDL
user.
...Do you say you are confused by using vectors
Jeremy Howard wrote:
Karl Glazebrook wrote:
you should look at the PDL mv() and xchg() methods
and factor this into your thinking!
Actually, the RFC is based on PDL's xchg()! I forgot to document using
negative numbers to count from the last dimension--I'll add that into the
next
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
Regular Expression Special Variables
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Uri Guttman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 25 Aug 2000
Last Modified: 22 Sep 2000
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number: 158
Version: 3
Hugo wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "David L. Nicol" writes:
:I think I did -- I guess v2 didn't make it in; I sent it again; what
:were your and mjd's comments again?
Here are the messages:
http://www.mail-archive.com/perl6-language-regex%40perl.org/msg00306.html
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
Allow Varibles in tr///
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Richard Proctor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 27 Aug 2000
Last Modified: 22 Sep 2000
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number: 165
Version: 3
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
Alternative lists and quoting of things
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Richard Proctor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 27 Aug 2000
Last Modifiedj: 22 Sep 2000
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number: 166
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
Boolean Regexes
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Richard Proctor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 6 Sep 2000
Last Modified: 22 Sep 2000
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number: 198
Version: 2
Status:
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
Generalised Additions to Regexs
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Richard Proctor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 22 Sep 2000
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number: 274
Version: 1
Status: Developing
=head1
=item perl6storm #0064
Do something about microsoft's CRLF abomination.
I think for the case of Microsoft C++ used for the Win32 port, everyone
would be happy if Perl's sysopen, sysread, etc. did not require binmode.
Unfortunately, Microsoft made the decision very early on in its C/C++
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Glenn Linderman wrote:
In my opinion, which you probably will also not agree with, attempting to
toggle between the current undef semantics and tristate semantics is like
trying to stuff three values into one bit. This comment assumes that the
current undef is
while (FH) {
s/^M$//;
# Process $_
}
Cute psuedocode.
I don't like CRLF at all, it makes me feel like I'm dealing with a
typewritter. But, giving multiple values to $/ seems more painful to me
that to just
tr/\r//d;
on any suspected M$
On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 05:21:27 -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote:
=item perl6storm #0031
Add pragma to auto-flock LOCK_EX any files opened O_WRONLY,
and LOCK_SH otherwise.
Good idea. I thought of proposing something like this ages ago. Perl is
a high-level language, it must be thinkable to patch
Glenn Linderman said [in response to Russ]:
...maybe explaining the types of confusion that you see
with a separate null and undef vs the types of confusion that you see with a
tristate pragma would help me to grasp that logic.
I don't see why we need to keep spinning our wheels on this
On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Greg Boug wrote:
=item perl6storm #0064
Do something about microsoft's CRLF abomination.
Perhaps somehow allowing $/ to take multiple input delimeters (perhaps in a
fashion similar to egrep)... How about:
[snip]
$/ = "seperator1|seperator2";
[snip]
Hugo wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "David L. Nicol" writes:
:I think I did -- I guess v2 didn't make it in; I sent it again; what
:were your and mjd's comments again?
Here are the messages:
http://www.mail-archive.com/perl6-language-regex%40perl.org/msg00306.html
This and other RFCs are available on the web at
http://dev.perl.org/rfc/
=head1 TITLE
Perl should support an interactive mode.
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: Ariel Scolnicov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 31 Aug 2000
Last Modified: 22 Sep 2000
Mailing List: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Number: 184
Matthew Cline wrote:
But if Perl6 is changed so that you can write extensions in plain old C
(without using something like Inline), it seems certain that there'd be some
XS compatability tool, so as to not break all the current XS code out there.
So then we could have three ways of writing
30 matches
Mail list logo
