At 09:56 AM 8/26/00 +1200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > It looks like we need to be able to override operations on arrays, have
> > multi-dimensional arrays, and do some rather odd slicing operations that
> > give values still linked to the original matrices.
> >
> > Has any
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> It looks like we need to be able to override operations on arrays, have
> multi-dimensional arrays, and do some rather odd slicing operations that
> give values still linked to the original matrices.
>
> Has anyone asked for complex number support yet?
It's hidden in one o
Karl Glazebrook wrote:
> "->" really sucks as something to routinely type in to a interactive shell
> all the time. I hate it.
I can not agree more. It just seems terribly unnecessary.
Just allow us to directly overload some of the braces/parentheses for
objects.
I would be happy with
$pdl(0:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> to make foo and bar 5x5x5 matricies that you casn multiply to get baz then,
> well, say it. If that means you need to define a way to provide overridden
> operators in the Matrix package, then go for it and say that.
>
> Let the -internals folks worry about the Weird Magic
At 01:11 PM 8/25/00 -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>Heh, we're on the same page here. I'm just setting the framework
>for that discussion. I don't think the PDL folks yet know what
>they want, other than "better support for numerical structures".
>
>I'm trying to see what's wrong with the exist
Nathan Torkington wrote:
> > (1) The current
> >
> >$pdl->slice("0:$n,(0)");
> >
> > syntax sucks.
>
> Would:
>
> $pdl->[0:$n][0][:]
>
> suffice? I figure this would translate into something like:
>
> $pdl->subscript( 0, $n )
> ->subscript( 0 )
> ->subscript( undef, undef
>Right you are. I'm still living in the 20th century :-)
So are all of us -- just give it a few months, though. :-)
--tom
Tom Christiansen writes:
> >> >Also, there are many array operations (push, pop, etc) still not
> >> >supported by tie.
>
> Eh? Either that's no longer true, or we're doing the time warp again.
Right you are. I'm still living in the 20th century :-)
Nat
>> >The problem is that you can tie() an array, but an object is a scalar.
Yes, Python unifies these.
>> >Also, there are many array operations (push, pop, etc) still not
>> >supported by tie.
Eh? Either that's no longer true, or we're doing the time warp again.
--tom
Dan Sugalski writes:
> Sure, it's handwaving, but it's handwaving with a purpose. What I don't
> want is for people to get bogged down by the limits of what perl 5
> provides, or what looks to be some sort of reasonable extrapolation
> of those features.
>
> If a fully working tie's what you
At 12:38 PM 8/25/00 -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>Dan Sugalski writes:
> > The operative word in that last sentence is "Currently"...
> >
> > >The problem is that you can tie() an array, but an object is a scalar.
> > >Also, there are many array operations (push, pop, etc) still not
> > >suppor
Dan Sugalski writes:
> The operative word in that last sentence is "Currently"...
>
> >The problem is that you can tie() an array, but an object is a scalar.
> >Also, there are many array operations (push, pop, etc) still not
> >supported by tie. tie makes assumptions about arrays that are perha
At 12:11 PM 8/25/00 -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > (1) The current
> >
> >$pdl->slice("0:$n,(0)");
> >
> > syntax sucks.
>
>Would:
>
> $pdl->[0:$n][0][:]
>
>suffice? I figure this would translate into something like:
>
> $pdl->subscript( 0, $n )
> ->s
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> These are some of the current issues that we have identified:
Excellent! Thanks for this.
> (1) The current
>
>$pdl->slice("0:$n,(0)");
>
> syntax sucks.
Would:
$pdl->[0:$n][0][:]
suffice? I figure this would translate into something like:
$pdl->subscr
> I'm here because:
> * I think the PDL folks have valid needs
> * I think a lot of people are having trouble making suggestions for
>language changes that mesh well with other constructs in the
>language.
> * I'm not able to tell you want you need, but I will try to help
>you come
Someone said:
> Um, to clarify... While I'm here, I'm mostly a lurker and learner.
> If you don't here from me, that's because I'm watching, not talking.
I'm here because:
* I think the PDL folks have valid needs
* I think a lot of people are having trouble making suggestions for
language c
Karl Glazebrook writes:
: Who is here anyway?
Don't ask me. I only work here.
Larry
On Thu, Aug 24, 2000 at 10:04:27AM -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
> At 10:00 AM 8/24/00 -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
> >At 09:53 AM 8/24/00 -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
> >
> >>Well the PDL RFCs seem to have been totally ignored on perl6-language.
> >>
> >>Maybe we should discuss them here, come to some
Casey R. Tweten writes:
> Who is the chair of this group? We need an RFC or two to work on.
The chair is Jeremy Howard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. See dev.perl.org/lists
for a master list of all mailing lists.
All RFCs are available on dev.perl.org/rfc/, including several that
are appropriate for -da
Today around 8:13am, Larry Wall hammered out this masterpiece:
: Karl Glazebrook writes:
: : Who is here anyway?
:
: Don't ask me. I only work here.
Who is the chair of this group? We need an RFC or two to work on.
--
print(join(' ', qw(Casey R. Tweten)));my $sig={mail=>'[EMAIL PROTECTED]',
At 09:53 AM 8/24/00 -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
>Well the PDL RFCs seem to have been totally ignored on perl6-language.
I think it's more that most of the -language folks don't have much
familiarity with PDL or fancier math in general.
>Maybe we should discuss them here, come to some conclus
Christian can you repost them here then?
Karl
Buddha Buck wrote:
> I'm here... I thought the formation of perl6-language-data was to discuss
> the PDL RFCs anyway...
>
> >Karl
At 10:00 AM 8/24/00 -0400, Buddha Buck wrote:
>At 09:53 AM 8/24/00 -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
>
>>Well the PDL RFCs seem to have been totally ignored on perl6-language.
>>
>>Maybe we should discuss them here, come to some conclusions and
>>present them with a fait accompli. "These are the recom
Today around 10:00am, Buddha Buck hammered out this masterpiece:
: At 09:53 AM 8/24/00 -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
: >Well the PDL RFCs seem to have been totally ignored on perl6-language.
: >
: >Maybe we should discuss them here, come to some conclusions and
: >present them with a fait accompl
At 09:53 AM 8/24/00 -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
>Well the PDL RFCs seem to have been totally ignored on perl6-language.
>
>Maybe we should discuss them here, come to some conclusions and
>present them with a fait accompli. "These are the recommendations
>of perl6-data".
>
>Who is here anyway?
Well the PDL RFCs seem to have been totally ignored on perl6-language.
Maybe we should discuss them here, come to some conclusions and
present them with a fait accompli. "These are the recommendations
of perl6-data".
Who is here anyway?
Karl
Today around 9:33am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] hammered out this masterpiece:
: Karl Glazebrook wrote:
: >
: > Just a test to see if this list is actually alive...
:
: Seems to be. But no great activity yet. Where to start?
Perhaps the issues of where dump() will be in Perl6 should be moved here.
--
Karl Glazebrook wrote:
>
> Just a test to see if this list is actually alive...
Seems to be. But no great activity yet. Where to start?
Christian
28 matches
Mail list logo
