> ATM "func"/[args] notation has one big advantage: it does not create > an intermediate list. So it is more efficient than 'reduce(func, args)' > variant. Supporting it in compiler in a sense is almost trivial: > most of code is present anyway to support '[i for i in l]' construct.
The syntax fun/list is quite unintuitive. I don't think that we should support it. Waldek, are you saying that fun/[f(x) for x in somelist] wouldn't create an additional list, namely [f(x) for x in somelist], but rather be equivalent to n := 0 for x in somelist n := n + f(x) n ? What is the result of _+ / [] and _* / [] ? I would rather be in favour of Generator(X) in SPAD. That would also not create intermediate lists. Ralf -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FriCAS - computer algebra system" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
