On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 08:56:28AM -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
> Firstly does your proposal allow for a slice like 10..20:2 (i.e. with
> a stride of 2) ?
As shipped: no. But if this is made a primitive (which I would not
like), then the only change which is needed is to make the
tie::multi::range() token to be followed by 3 numbers.
[Aside: Why not make ternary-range operator into 10 :: 20 :: 2 ?]
> Secondly, what about having multidim support in the core so that the
> tie-tokenisers get optimised away? i.e. would we be able to
> say something like:
>
> @x = @y[10..20; 1..3]
>
> for core arrays
Yes, this is item 9 of the proposal.
> Finally as an overload expert what do you think about the proposals
> to make arrays overloadable objects so one can say things like:
>
> @x = 3 * @y;
This is not an overloading issue, this is the context resolution
issue. IMO, the cryptocontext turns out to be evil with an exception
of extremely short scripts - and this is with what we have now.
A proposal like this would make a nuisance into a nightmare. Yes, it
looks nice, but it contradicts many rules, so in the long run it is
going to be a significant step back.
...Unless the whole idea of cryptocontext is turned to become something else...
Ilya
