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
Ok now what do you think of representing matrices as below:
Pointer to array of pointers of pointers, with the array elements
pointing to the first element in the rows of each matrix and each element
in the rows in turn pointing to a pmc.
I havent thought alot on how we should do operations with
