Front page | perl.perl6.language.data |
Postings from September 2000
Christian Soeller wrote: > Karl Glazebrook wrote: > > Buddha Buck wrote: > > > > > > > > @x = 3 * $y[|i]; > > > > > > > >It's not as clean as @x = 3 * @y, but it is cleaner context-wise. > > > > > > And one could argue that: > > > > > > @x = map 3*^_, @y; > > > > > > is cleaner yet... > > > > PDL already allows $x = 3*$y > > > > why step backwards? > > Exactly. Those other solutions are plain ugly. > > Slightly different messages are conveyed in this regard anyway. Dan > Sugalski wrote at some stage that overloading for arrays is a feature > very likely to be in perl6 while Ilya says this will add to confusion. > ?! > Yes, Dan and others have been involved from the start and have regularly provided feedback on what is viable... But let's not second guess the capabilities of the -internals guys. We should specify a good language design that is conceptually viable. This means that our proposals should be internally consistent, provide a simple and intuitive interface, and avoid problems that Computer Science has not yet solved. In the example of array operations, element-wise operations, including the broadcasting of lower dimensionality arrays (and scalars) to to higher dimensions, is one of the most powerful constructs in languages like NumPy and J and is well proven as a powerful and viable approach. We can propose the best semantics we can develop, which provides a platform for iteration between design and implementation that has a clear goal. Compromises in implementation are then also more clear.Thread Previous | Thread Next