[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> How about (if perl6 allows passing arrays implicitly by reference
> without arglist flattening)
>
> transpose @arr, $a, $b; # xchg
> transpose @arr, {$a => $b}; # mv
> transpose @arr, [0,3,4,1,2]; # PDL reorder
>
You know, I had just logged in to pos
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 10:41:07AM +1100, Jeremy Howard wrote:
> > Many Perl users operate on lists of data. Requiring explicit loops every
> > time a programmer wants to operate on a list is asking the programmer to fit
> > in with how a computer thinks. That's not r
Jeremy Howard wrote:
>
> BTW, I notice that you're using dimension numbering starting at 0 for your
> transpose() examples. Is everyone happy to start at 0 rather than 1?
OF COURSE!!
anything else would be WRONG
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
> > ...Do you say you are confused by using vectors (=scalars) instead of
> > arrays?
>
> I'm not having a problem with that personally but *many* users of PDL
> have complained about being confused by this.
> They assume ndim == array == perl
Karl Glazebrook wrote:
> Jeremy Howard wrote:
> >
> > BTW, I notice that you're using dimension numbering starting at 0 for
your
> > transpose() examples. Is everyone happy to start at 0 rather than 1?
>
> OF COURSE!!
>
> anything else would be W
Jeremy Howard wrote:
>
> Karl Glazebrook wrote:
> > Jeremy Howard wrote:
> > >
> > > BTW, I notice that you're using dimension numbering starting at 0 for
> your
> > > transpose() examples. Is everyone happy to start at 0 rather than 1?
> >
> > OF COURSE!!!
Jeremy Howard wrote:
> So where is mv(), you ask? If you use the 'reorder' syntax, but don't
> specify all of the dimensions in the list ref, then the remaining dimensions
> are added in order:
That sounds good. I'd say why not also allow the mv syntax? It is
syntactically different from the oth
Karl Glazebrook wrote:
> the arguments to reshape should be sizes not last elements (i.e. N's
> not N-1's).
Yup, it's simple: size (N) vs index range (0..N-1)
> How does this sound?
Logical and consistent ;)
Christian
Jeremy Howard wrote:
> (I'm not assuming the no-flattening thing, since that's another source of
> angst altogether!)
What is the no-flattening thing?
Christian
This may be verging outside of the range of "language-data" and veering
towards "internals", but I'd sort of like to hash out an idea to make
sure that I'm thinking straight.
When I heard about transpose() (as well as reshape(), etc), I was
concerned about the time it would take to execute the
Buddha Buck wrote:
> When I heard about transpose() (as well as reshape(), etc), I was
> concerned about the time it would take to execute these complex
> operations. To wit, naively, I believed that a lot of data shuffling
> would be necessary.
If I understand your message correctly this is ex
11 matches
Mail list logo
