At 06:21 PM 8/29/00 +0000, Jim Edwards wrote: > > > > > > Regardless, you can already do this in perl 5, and will undoubtedly be able > > to do it in perl 6, with source filters. > >So why do we have to do >$ip1=$i+1; # my pdl pet peave >$f->slice("(0),$ip1,$i"); > >instead of > >$f((0),$i+1,$i); # substitute your favorite syntax here > >? Because source filters are: 1) Relatively new (5.005 IIRC, but I could be mis-remembering) 2) A bloody pain in the neck to write Lots of things could use 'em if they were easier to do. That's one of the goals of perl 6, I think. Dan --------------------------------------"it's like this"------------------- Dan Sugalski even samurai [EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even teddy bears get drunk
- Proposed RFC for matrix indexing and slicing Buddha Buck
- Re: Proposed RFC for matrix indexing and slicing Karl Glazebrook
- Re: Proposed RFC for matrix indexing and slicin... Dan Sugalski
- Re: Proposed RFC for matrix indexing and sl... Karl Glazebrook
- Re: Proposed RFC for matrix indexing an... Dan Sugalski
- Access to the perl6 parser Jim Edwards
- Re: Access to the perl6 parser Dan Sugalski
- Re: Access to the perl6 pa... Jim Edwards
- Re: Access to the perl6 pa... Dan Sugalski
- Re: Access to the perl6 pa... Christian Soeller
- Re: Access to the perl6 pa... Jim Edwards
- Re: Proposed RFC for matrix indexi... Christian Soeller
- Re: Proposed RFC for matrix in... Karl Glazebrook
- Re: Proposed RFC for matri... Nathan Torkington
- Re: Proposed RFC for matri... Karl Glazebrook
- Re: Proposed RFC for matri... Dan Sugalski
- Re: Proposed RFC for matri... Jeremy Howard
- Re: Proposed RFC for matri... Bart Lateur
- Re: Proposed RFC for matri... c . soeller