On Wed, 19 Jun 2002, Ashley Winters wrote:
> I don't think you need to worry about optimizing complex operations too much,
> the PDL people have come up with miracles before... they just need the tools.
>
Sorry yo come in late but I would hope that the PDL people would not have
to come up wit
At 11:11 AM -0600 6/20/02, Luke Palmer wrote:
> > We don't want to accidentally turn that into a hyperplus on @a's PMC, when
>> it should really be a plus on the scalar version of @a.
>
>Which is a reference. You're adding to a reference? You can't do that
>(or does it somehow scalarify to the
At 1:56 PM +0100 6/20/02, Peter Haworth wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Jun 2002 12:15:57 -0400, Dan Sugalski wrote:
>> At 6:08 PM +0200 6/19/02, Stéphane Payrard wrote:
>> >Should not we think matrices in the light of hyperators?
>>
>> Of course. But the hyper version of the operators all map directly to
>
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 11:11:39 -0600 (MDT), Luke Palmer wrote:
> > If the hyperness of a vmethod depends on the type of PMC it belongs to, we
> > need to force every operand to a specific type (scalar or list/array), even
> > if it looks like it's already the right type:
> >
> > $r = \@a; # Or i
> If the hyperness of a vmethod depends on the type of PMC it belongs to, we
> need to force every operand to a specific type (scalar or list/array), even
> if it looks like it's already the right type:
>
> $r = \@a; # Or is it just $r=@a ?
> $r + 3;
What the hell? I'm confused here. What
