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
On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 08:16:17AM +1000, Jeremy Howard wrote:
Martyn J. Pearce wrote:
... what I would like to discuss adding to the language is
1) a means to signal an early exit to the iterator,
2) a means to tell we're at the end of a list without having to
evaluate the list length
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
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 07:36:09PM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gisle Aas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The upcoming Python (v2.0) introduces a builtin called zip() that does
the same thing:
for a,b,c in zip(aa,bb,cc):
...
There are also
On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 06:31:38AM +, Martyn J. Pearce wrote:
And I feel that by being able to iterate over lists with map, grep,
fold[rl]/reduce{,_r}, whatever, _without pre-flattening the list_, we
could drastically increase the applicability of these constructs.
Having iterators
Graham Barr said:
...
So there probably should be an RFC to add iterators to the language and
be avaliable from perl, not just C. But I have no idea how they
should look etc.
More generally, I wonder whether there should be an RFC on the changes
required to make perl a more friendly
Graham Barr wrote:
I was simply repeating a conversation. I was not implying any
name. If many other languages call it zip() then lets call it zip()
No, we can't call it zip, because that's what python calls it;
and that would make perl equivalent to python.*
[*being facetious. hopefully
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
More importantly, the more primitives that perl provides, the wilder
and more useful things people will be able to do.
Not quite. Its the functions that are provided that matter, not
whether they are primitives or not[1]. A small set of primitives with a
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 10:27:08PM +0300, Ariel Scolnicov wrote:
multimap operation list-of-lists # uurgh.
This made me think of something else that came up in a discussion with Larry
after the conference.
The discussion started off with the ability to do
for ($a,$b) (@list) { ... }
hi,
Why not some sort of functionality like LISP/Prolog i.e. working with lists.
("a",@x,"b",%y) - the list
head ("a",@x,"b",%y) # "a"
head(tile("a",@x,"b",%y)) #@x
head(head(tile("a",@x,"b",%y))) #$x[0]
head(tile(tile("a",@x,"b",%y))) #"b"
if you like it then "splice" etc...
Dan Sugalski [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
continuations, generators and co-routines.
Could someone point me to a reference on these, please? My CS text
collection's rather spotty and doesn't cover this stuff.
The Icon Programming Language
Ralph E. Griswold, Madge T. Griswold
Graham Barr wrote:
But then went onto interators and something like
@list = interleave(@a,@b,@c);
which would interleave the lists given, and
foreach ($a,$b,$c) (interleave(@a,@b,@c))
sub interleave(\@;\@\@\@\@\@\@\@\@) {
my $m = -1;
for ( @_ ) { $m $#{$_}
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 10:43:37AM -0600, Tom Christiansen wrote:
sub mapf(;\@\@\@\@\@\@\@\@\@) {
Steal from lisp:
map
maap
maaap
mapp
mappp
maappp
dwim
:)
Graham.
Tom Christiansen wrote:
sub mapf(;\@\@\@\@\@\@\@\@\@) {
Steal from lisp:
map
maap
maaap
mapp
mappp
maappp
...
Should be feasible with an AUTOLOAD that takes a certain kind of regular
expression...
sub AUTOLOAD /^ma+p+$/ {
}
Some for the 'car' and
Graham Barr wrote:
The upcoming Python (v2.0) introduces a builtin called zip() that does
the same thing:
for a,b,c in zip(aa,bb,cc):
...
There are also question on how long the resulting list should be if
@a, @b, @c is not of the same length. I think zip() was defined
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gisle Aas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The upcoming Python (v2.0) introduces a builtin called zip() that does
the same thing:
for a,b,c in zip(aa,bb,cc):
...
There are also question on how long the resulting list should be if
@a, @b, @c is not
On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 12:22:10PM -0400, John Porter wrote:
sub interleave(\@;\@\@\@\@\@\@\@\@) {
...
}
sub mapf(;\@\@\@\@\@\@\@\@\@) {
...
}
I guess my question is, why do these need to be builtins?
sub push (\@@) { @{$_[0]} = (@{$_[0]}, @_[1..@_]); }
--
Addi Just imagine we
And how about
continuations, generators and co-routines.
chaim
"CF" == Chaim Frenkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
CF Magic words.
CF Iterators
CF Reduce (e.g. $x = reduce { sum } @list;
CF Case/Switch
CF Make some of the unaddressable into first class objects.
"PC" == Piers Cawley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
PC Chaim Frenkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And how about
continuations, generators and co-routines.
PC Now those'd be nice if they could be added without slowing down the
PC rest of perl.
(I didn't mention implementation)
I'd consider them
Piers Cawley writes:
Iterators
Doable in perl5 already.
Reduce (e.g. $x = reduce { sum } @list;
Doable in perl5
Case/Switch
Why? And Damian's already proved it can be done.
Perl's goal is to make easy things easy. I think case/switch is
something that belongs in
22 matches
Mail list logo
