Ken Fox wrote:
> > $a = sum(@b*@c+@d)
>
> I'm not strong in math, but I do remember a bit about row and column
> vectors. Isn't @b*@c ambiguous? Shouldn't it normally be interpreted
> as a dot product, i.e. treat all vectors the same?
>
It depends on what perl6-language comes up with. Probably
> "DS" == Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
DS> At 06:51 AM 8/4/00 -0700, Benjamin Stuhl wrote:
>> This actually leads to a much more general question, namely
>> passing of arrays to functions. For ppcode at least and
>> probably any code using the perl API, it should be possible
>> an
At 06:51 AM 8/4/00 -0700, Benjamin Stuhl wrote:
>This actually leads to a much more general question, namely
>passing of arrays to functions. For ppcode at least and
>probably any code using the perl API, it should be possible
>and IMHO desirable to push the AV* (or equivalent), rather
>than expan
Jeremy Howard wrote:
> $a = sum(@b*@c+@d)
I'm not strong in math, but I do remember a bit about row and column
vectors. Isn't @b*@c ambiguous? Shouldn't it normally be interpreted
as a dot product, i.e. treat all vectors the same?
> The normal problem with this type of structure is that the prev
> The normal problem with this type of structure is that
> the previous
> statement would create 2 array copies, and 3 loops for
> most compilers. In
> perl speak, it might look like:
> $dummy1[$_] = $b[$_]*$c[$_] for (0..$#b-1);
> $dummy2[$_] = $d[$_]+$dummy1[$_] for (0..$#dummy1-1);
> $sum+=$_ f
I'm a bit unsure of where to put this... it's a question of implementation,
but of a feature that is still being discussed still in perl6-language...
Let me know if this is the wrong forum or the wrong time...
There's been a lot of discussion about reduce/fold on perl6-language. The
details are s
