Hmmm... David, you seem to have covered all the issues with that rather
lucid screed [attached at bottom]. I have a couple of dragon-nits to pick,
one involving infrastructure and one involving syntax.
First: it seems strange to me to add yet another property (but
used_to_be_scalar) to
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 11:37:06AM -0700, Craig DeForest wrote:
@a[4; 0..5];
a 1x6 array (probably correct)? Or a 6 array (probably not
correct)?
For the ignorant among us (such as myself), what is a 6 array? Google
and pdl.perl.org did not yield any immediate answers.
--Dks
--
6 elements..?
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 07:33:11 -0800, David Storrs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 11:37:06AM -0700, Craig DeForest wrote:
@a[4; 0..5];
a 1x6 array (probably correct)? Or a 6 array (probably not
correct)?
For the ignorant among us (such as
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 11:37:06AM -0700, Craig DeForest wrote:
: I just re-read Synopsis 9, which covers PDL-related actions and array
slicing,
: and came to the conclusion that either (A) there's a hole in the syntax as it
: is lain out, (B) I lack sufficient understanding of what has been
Sorry, too terse :-)
I meant ...a two dimensional array with 1x6 elements (probably correct)? Or
a one dimensional array with 6 elements (probably not correct)?
Cheers,
Craig
Quoth David Storrs on Monday 10 January 2005 08:33 am,
On Sat, Jan 08, 2005 at 11:37:06AM -0700, Craig DeForest
H... It would be easy to distinguish the slicing cases if it were easier
to distinguish between a number and a list containing just [In fact, that is
more or less how perl5/PDL's arg-list-based slicer ('mslice') does things.]
At the top of Synopsis 9, there's a discussion about exactly
Double hmmm That would also supplant the lone '*' wart in indexing
syntax: instead of saying
@array[0..10;*;@x]
you could say
@array[0..10; !; @x]
Presumably, the '!;' would expand to the scalar undef value, which could be
interpreted as do nothing on this axis, while in
I just re-read Synopsis 9, which covers PDL-related actions and array slicing,
and came to the conclusion that either (A) there's a hole in the syntax as it
is lain out, (B) I lack sufficient understanding of what has been thought
out so far, or (C) that part of the language definition isn't
