Tuomas Lukka [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 4 Aug 2000, Ariel Scolnicov wrote:
Karl Glazebrook [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
OK I will raise to the bait
I think it's a bit unfair to say that PDL people have failed to 'bite',
there was quite a bit of discussion on our list after
OK I will raise to the bait
I think it's a bit unfair to say that PDL people have failed to 'bite',
there was quite a bit of discussion on our list after your post. Also
some concern about how much of perl6 is vapourware.
I am game to take part in discussions.
It has always been apparent to
Also on the issue of loop unrolling and efficient looping.
PDL has what we call 'threading'.
This allows a C-level function to specify the dimensionality of
the arguments it accepts. For example a function addtoline() which
hyptheticaly adds a constant to a row vector might
have a 'signature'
On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Tuomas Lukka wrote:
On 4 Aug 2000, Ariel Scolnicov wrote:
Well, first of all,
10:100, 30:200
is not the same: in Perl it comes out as
10..100, 30..200
10, 11, ... , 100, 30, 31, .., 200
Additionally, generically it would not necessarily
