Buddha Buck wrote:
>
> Boy, there are a lot of people on that CC: list... Anyone want off
> this ride?
>
> How would you recommend the RFC breakdown?
>
> Use ";" for matrix index separator
> Use named iterators for matrix indices
>
> anything else?
Everyone else is way past brainstormin
Jeremy Howard wrote:
My plan for this list is to strongly encourage RFC maintainers to work
> together to remove conflicts and incompatibilities from their RFCs. This
> will sometimes require retiring a number of RFCs and writing a new
> consolidated one.
>
> My hope is that we can have a single
Bart Lateur wrote:
> Personally, I would like to have Larry's fiat *before* trying to iron
> out the incompatibilities. It could be that you throw away something
> that Larry would approve of, and keep something he doesn't like.
I'd vote to go for what we think is the best compromise. If Larry
i
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 11:20:25 +1100, Jeremy Howard wrote:
>My hope is that we can have a single set of frozen RFCs in a month's time,
>with incompatible or redundant RFCs withdrawn.
>In the end, I trust Larry to make good in-or-out decisions if we give him
>good input.
Personally, I would like
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 02:16 PM 8/30/00 -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
> >subgroups should iron out there differences among themselves and come up
> >with a coherent set of proposals.
> >
> >the final decision should not be in the hands of one person.
>
> Someone ultimately has to make the in or
At 02:16 PM 8/30/00 -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
>Nathan Torkington wrote:
> >
> > Karl Glazebrook writes:
> > > Yes. And for the record I also think the current approach of lets
> generate
> > > ten million RFCs and Uncle Larry knows best is nuts. There are already
> > > too many RFCs on this t
At 02:05 PM 8/30/00 -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
>Christian Soeller wrote:
>
> > What Karl was trying to get at is a suggestion to have one RFC on
> > indexing instead of three competing ones, for example. The current
> > approach seems to be make a new RFC always (regardless what is there
> > al
Nathan Torkington wrote:
>
> Karl Glazebrook writes:
> > Yes. And for the record I also think the current approach of lets generate
> > ten million RFCs and Uncle Larry knows best is nuts. There are already
> > too many RFCs on this topic alone to grasp coherently.
>
> Do you have a better sugge
Karl Glazebrook writes:
> Yes. And for the record I also think the current approach of lets generate
> ten million RFCs and Uncle Larry knows best is nuts. There are already
> too many RFCs on this topic alone to grasp coherently.
Do you have a better suggestion?
Nat
Christian Soeller wrote:
> What Karl was trying to get at is a suggestion to have one RFC on
> indexing instead of three competing ones, for example. The current
> approach seems to be make a new RFC always (regardless what is there
> already). The other approach would be to take existing ones a
Boy, there are a lot of people on that CC: list... Anyone want off
this ride?
Jeremy Howard said:
> This RFC is a good start. Here's some thoughts on ways to decrease the
> amount of new syntax and avoid the HOF ambiguity... Also, I suggest multiple
> RFCs for the different ideas contained with
Nathan Wiger wrote:
> And I'm assuming this only returns one element, right? Because if it
> returns a list it's not a $scalar. I think by this:
>
>$a[[$i,$j,$k], [$x,$y,$z]];
>
> You might actually mean this:
>
>@a[[$i,$j,$k], [$x,$y,$z]];
>
Yes, that's what I meant--sorry for the con
Jeremy Howard wrote:
>
> I prefer the syntax I suggested yesterday:
>
> $a[[$i,$j,$k]];
>
> which also allows multiple elements:
>
> $a[[$i,$j,$k], [$x,$y,$z]];
The problem I have with the above is how similar it is to this:
@a[$i,$j,$k];
A little too close for comfort, personally. Bu
This RFC is a good start. Here's some thoughts on ways to decrease the
amount of new syntax and avoid the HOF ambiguity... Also, I suggest multiple
RFCs for the different ideas contained within.
Buddha Buck wrote:
> I propose the use of ';' as a separator for index terms when accessing
> multi-di
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >Meanwhile we all go rambling around on cross-threads and come up
> >with no coherent set of proposals.
>
> So? If the idea has merit, it'll make it into one or more RFCs, and Larry's
> rather good at making things coherent. If it just putters around for a
> while on the li
At 12:33 PM 8/29/00 -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
>You should have a look at the PDL RFC 117 before submitting this.
>
>It would be bad to have multiple RFCs suggesting the same thing.
I just read PDL RFC 117, and your current argument with Dan aside...
I don't see a problem.
Here is the core
At 12:43 PM 8/29/00 -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > >It would be bad to have multiple RFCs suggesting the same thing.
> >
> > Nope, it wouldn't be.
> >
> > Don't assume that any particular RFC will be accepted in its entirety
> > either--it's always possible that Larry'll
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >It would be bad to have multiple RFCs suggesting the same thing.
>
> Nope, it wouldn't be.
>
> Don't assume that any particular RFC will be accepted in its entirety
> either--it's always possible that Larry'll take the good bits and leave the
> rest...
>
>
At 12:33 PM 8/29/00 -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
>You should have a look at the PDL RFC 117 before submitting this.
>
>It would be bad to have multiple RFCs suggesting the same thing.
Nope, it wouldn't be.
Don't assume that any particular RFC will be accepted in its entirety
either--it's alwa
You should have a look at the PDL RFC 117 before submitting this.
It would be bad to have multiple RFCs suggesting the same thing.
Much better to come to some agreement HERE on what the syntax
should be first, then submit consensus RFCs.
My view: I am pretty flexible I like most suggestions as
This is a copy of the RFC I sent to the Librarian. I don't know when the
Librarian will publish it, but I don't want to wait any longer... We can
discuss it while he is compiling/classifying/publishing it.
--
=head1 TITLE
Proposed syntax for matrix element
21 matches
Mail list logo
