Jeremy:
you should look at the PDL mv() and xchg() methods
and factor this into your thinking!
Karl
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
But with Fortran such things are not *needed*. Compilers are smart
enough to convert (equivalents to)
map 3*$_, 34..67
This is true, but easier (and less buggy) to say what you
exactly what you mean. 102:201:3
Anyway the idea has been proposed, it won't break
On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 11:17:40AM -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
[Cryptocontext is:]
f(3*@a)
would typically be a list context - and suddently instead of 3*(1+$#a)
you get Cmap 3*$_, @a.
This is true, what I would propose is we declare 3*(1+$#a) outmoded and
always have it mean
Karl Glazebrook wrote:
you should look at the PDL mv() and xchg() methods
and factor this into your thinking!
Actually, the RFC is based on PDL's xchg()! I forgot to document using
negative numbers to count from the last dimension--I'll add that into the
next version. Are there any other
Jeremy Howard wrote:
Karl Glazebrook wrote:
you should look at the PDL mv() and xchg() methods
and factor this into your thinking!
Actually, the RFC is based on PDL's xchg()! I forgot to document using
negative numbers to count from the last dimension--I'll add that into the
next
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
You are trading a frequently used shortcut @a == 1 + $#a for a
rarely-used-but-beautiful/intuitive semantic. I'm not sure it is a win.
It's now boiling down to a matter of opinion and we'll have to agree to
differ. Of course I use array arithmetic all the time as a
On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 05:24:55PM -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
It's now boiling down to a matter of opinion and we'll have to agree to
differ. Of course I use array arithmetic all the time as a heavy PDL
user.
...Do you say you are confused by using vectors (=scalars) instead of
arrays?
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
Moveover,
$x = 3 * @_;
suddently being equivalent to
$x = @_;
does not look very promising...
Why are these equivalent? RFC 82 only applies in list context. Am I missing
something?
On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 09:52:51AM +1100, Jeremy Howard wrote:
$x = 3 * @_;
suddently being equivalent to
$x = @_;
does not look very promising...
Why are these equivalent? RFC 82 only applies in list context. Am I missing
something?
Yes, the proposal to make
Karl Glazebrook wrote:
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
You are trading a frequently used shortcut @a == 1 + $#a for a
rarely-used-but-beautiful/intuitive semantic. I'm not sure it is a win.
It's now boiling down to a matter of opinion and we'll have to agree to
differ. Of course I use array
On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 10:01:11AM +1100, Jeremy Howard wrote:
It's now boiling down to a matter of opinion and we'll have to agree to
differ. Of course I use array arithmetic all the time as a heavy PDL
user.
It's not just for number-crunchers either. Array notation greatly simplifies
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
Are you trying to convince me/us that is going to be used often?
Yes, I am. You made the unsupported statement that array operations are
rarely used. I'm suggesting otherwise (although to say that they're rarely
used in Perl 5 is a tautology, of course!).
Array
On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 10:41:07AM +1100, Jeremy Howard wrote:
a) You can *already* use vectors as scalars in Perl;
That's not what RFC 82 is proposing.
Who cares? This already works...
b) What we are discussing is Perl, not Mathematica, J, PDL, and so
forth. These languages have
Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 05:24:55PM -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
It's now boiling down to a matter of opinion and we'll have to agree to
differ. Of course I use array arithmetic all the time as a heavy PDL
user.
...Do you say you are confused by using vectors
Jeremy Howard wrote:
Karl Glazebrook wrote:
you should look at the PDL mv() and xchg() methods
and factor this into your thinking!
Actually, the RFC is based on PDL's xchg()! I forgot to document using
negative numbers to count from the last dimension--I'll add that into the
next
15 matches
Mail list logo
