Hi,
> ^foo = ([1, 2], [3, 4]); # I know, it's taken, I helped :-)
> $foo[0,0]; # uh-oh
>
>Then adding a new fundamental type and syntax is not only unnecessary,
>but silly.
Why do you think that individual elements are perl scalars? since we don't keep
strings in piddles, unless you assign the element to a perl scalar individual elements
are still piddles and when I write programs I have no problem thinking a number as
1x1x1x1x...x1 multidimentional matrix. You can think it as a slice of one element, a
reference to the memory where that element efficiently stored.
To access individual element:
^foo(0,0);
If you want to use it as a perl scalar:
$a = ^foo(0,0);
Or perl should be able to understand if it is used in scalar or array context:
print "First element is ^foo(0,0).\n";
Baris.
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 28.08.2000 at 20:37 Nathan Wiger wrote:
>Doug Hunt wrote:
>>
>> What I meant to say (but failed, alas) was that I support the idea for a
>> new perl variable type called compact array:
>>
>> $foo -- scalar
>> @foo -- array
>> %foo -- hash
>> ^foo -- compact array (or whatever notation)
>>
>> Given this notation, you could have hashes of compact arrays, lists of
>> compact arrays, etc. There are still sticky questions about how much
>> should be done in the perl core and how much in modules. It would, of
>> course, make no sense to hack deeply into the perl core to add a new
>> fundamental type if everything useful that could be done with that type
>> required a separate module...
>
>The other valid point is: How are you going to access $individual
>elements? If the answer is to use $var[]'s still:
>
> ^foo = ([1, 2], [3, 4]); # I know, it's taken, I helped :-)
> $foo[0,0]; # uh-oh
>
>Then adding a new fundamental type and syntax is not only unnecessary,
>but silly. Since []'s and {}'s are already taken, and ()'s are
>off-limits because of symbolic references to functions, you're going to
>have to find a new set of characters:
>
> $foo(0,0) # BAD idea
> $foo^0,0^ # uh-oh, this
> $foo`0,0' # is just plain
> $foo|0,0| # getting ugly
>
>Blech!
>
>I think the better way is to take Buddha's idea (soon to be RFC'ed, by
>the sounds of it), and make current arrays a little more flexible. It
>sounds like we'll just have to add an extra dimension somehow, and then
>"arrays of compact arrays" will simply be "arrays with some compact
>elements". This sounds more flexible and less bloated to me.
>
>-Nate
________________________________________________________
1stUp.com - Free the Web
Get your free Internet access at http://www.1stUp.com
