Springing out of the ashes (and a job where I have to write Java) for my
first post in years:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:13:11 -0800, Dave Whipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree that adding a parallel forall (and similar statements) via a
pragma will be easy if the appropriate underlying machinery
Matthew Walton wrote:
I wouldn't agree with that at all. I think of arrays as ordered constructs,
so I'd want the default iteration over my array to happen in the order of
the indices.
I guess that depends on whether you think of the array as a list or as a
ram. I know that a group at
S06 says that we need to say eager if (@in === @out). So:
@data == eager map { $^x + 1 } == @data.
Is it possible to modify a feed operator using the assignment
meta-operator described in S02 and, if so, is the eager implict?
@data === map { $_ + 1 };
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 01:56:44PM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
S06 says that we need to say eager if (@in === @out). So:
@data == eager map { $^x + 1 } == @data.
Is it possible to modify a feed operator using the assignment meta-operator
described in S02 and, if so, is the eager implict?
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 10:34 -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
Matthew Walton wrote:
I wouldn't agree with that at all. I think of arrays as ordered constructs,
so I'd want the default iteration over my array to happen in the order of
the indices.
I guess that depends on whether you think of
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 03:59:00PM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
Larry Wall wrote:
As for assignment-op forms, in the current STD grammar, feeds are
not currently even considered operators, but statement separators, so
there is no possibility of using them in an assignment metaoperator
(or any
