Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 23, 2000 at 11:32:58AM -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
> > Yes this is the point. I guess another way of looking at it is
> > saying that 3*@a operates in a list context not a scalar context
>
> Well, this shows that you entirely miss the problem of cryptocontexts.
> Context is determined by the "environment" of the operation, not by
> the operation. Context is propagated:
>
> the-left-hand-side-of-assignment ---> the-right-hand-side-of-assignment
so what is wrong with the statement '@y = 3*@x;' then ?
> outside ---> inside
> About doing numerics with the current Perl: consider arrays as
> shapeless aggregates of whatever you can put there. Vectors are not
> shapeless, so cannot be represented by arrays.
sure this is what we do with PDL now.
>
> Changing Perl in this respect will make one particular mode of
> operation a tiny bit simpler, but (without major changes to
> cryptocontexting - <PLUG> see for example my interview on perl.com
> </PLUG>) will make life much harder in other modes of operation.
I read your interview. Hope you get to the bottom of the whole
integrability thing sounds like fascinating work.
I think major changes are what we aree talking about here.
> Remember: do you do your system mainainance in Mathematica? Why?
> Remember that Wolfram *wanted* you to do this? Perl5 is much better
> balanced. You are pulling the blanket to your side of the bed.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make about Mathematica? I
have read intevrviews with Woldfram ,he is clearky an egomanica and
thinks everything should be an expression, but I am not sure he
was arguing for system management in Mathematica.
Karl
