Bart Lateur [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 12:46:32 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
@foo = @bar * @baz;
Given that the default action of the multiply routine for an array in
non-scalar context would be to die, allowing user-overrides of the
functions would probably be a good
At 04:06 PM 8/9/00 +, Ed Mills wrote:
In keeping with Larry's design philosophy that the language should "not
just sit there -do something!" I agree that there should be a number of
vector/matrix manipulations available, performed in a psuedo-scalar
context (not in a loop).
That would be
At 11:13 PM 8/9/00 +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 12:46:32 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
@foo = @bar * @baz;
Given that the default action of the multiply routine for an array in
non-scalar context would be to die, allowing user-overrides of the
functions would probably be a
Bart Lateur wrote:
If you're talking about matrix manipulations, I should immediately hold
you back. Perl arrays are pretty bad as is for representing matrices.
Don't let anybody tell you otherwise: Perl data structures are
one-dimensionaly by nature.
A lazily evaluated slicing operator
On Wed, 09 Aug 2000, Jeremy Howard wrote:
Of course, if the user wants to overload this behaviour, we should let them.
In the multiplication example, however, I would have thought that 'x' is a
more suitable inner product operator...
And that seems to be where most of the critics of
Bryan C.Warnock wrote:
On Wed, 09 Aug 2000, Jeremy Howard wrote:
Of course, if the user wants to overload this behaviour, we should let
them.
In the multiplication example, however, I would have thought that 'x' is
a
more suitable inner product operator...
And that seems to be where most
On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 12:46:32 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
@foo = @bar * @baz;
Given that the default action of the multiply routine for an array in
non-scalar context would be to die, allowing user-overrides of the
functions would probably be a good idea... :)
[Is this still -internals? Or
At 05:39 PM 8/9/00 +0200, Bart Lateur wrote:
On Wed, 09 Aug 2000 09:41:22 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
@foo = @bar * 12;
@foo = map { $_ * 12 } @bar;
I don't see the need for a new notation.
Well, compactness for one. With a scalar on one side it's less odd (it was
a bad
