Nathan Wiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > > $a[$i][$j][$k] or $a[$i,$j,$k]
>
> > The second one has no useful meeting, "," is just an operator which
> > does nothing much useful in this context.
>
> Not true, at least not in the Perl I know. :-) Here's a description of
> what these do in P
Hi Karl,
Thanks for your comments.
I still think it would be a good idea to have a new type for both functional and
promotional purposes. I know that Nathan Torkington answered that perl6 will support
the requirements of PDL but I am hoping that having a new type for multidimentional
arrays let
On Fri, Aug 25, 2000 at 07:35:24PM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > > > $a[$i][$j][$k] or $a[$i,$j,$k]
>
> > The second one has no useful meeting, "," is just an operator which
> > does nothing much useful in this context.
>
> Not true, at least not in the Perl I know. :-) Here's a description of
>
Baris wrote:
>
> Suppose I am a newcomer to perl and my aim is to multiply two matrices
> and I don't really care about regex's or references in perl. Currently
> I have to learn a lot about perl language to begin working with matrix
> multiplication. This seems to me aginst the perl culture. I k
> Not being a PDL'er myself, but interested in learning more about it and
> making sure Perl 6 doesn't suck, I'd love to see a bulleted list of what
> doesn't work right, even assuming that @arrays were made more flexible.
> For example, if you could do this:
>
>@c = @a * @b;
>@c = @a +
Buddha Buck wrote:
>
> $matrix[$x,$y,$z] already has a reasonable meaning. If we
> appropriate that syntax, how do you take slices of a matrix?
My point too, only someone else pointed out that this is actually
@matrix[$x,$y,$z].
STILL, the fact that I've been hacking Perl since 4 and missed th
