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
supported by tie.
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 need,
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
Right you are. I'm still living in the 20th century :-)
So are all of us -- just give it a few months, though. :-)
--tom
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 )
That is, you can
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 existing
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
