Simon Cozens wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 08:30:31AM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> > Seen http://dev.perl.org/rfc/82.pod?
>
> I hadn't. I'm surprised it didn't give the PDL people screaming fits.
> But no, I wouldn't do it like that. It has:
>
> @b = (1,2,3);
> @c = (2,4,6);
> @d = @b *
Simon Cozens wrote:
> Better is to solve the general problem, and have all
> operators overloadable even on non-objects, so the user
> can define how this sort of thing works.
Even better is to let the user have access to the real
objects by which "non-objects", i.e. normal variables,
are impleme
On Mon, Mar 19, 2001 at 08:30:31AM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
> Seen http://dev.perl.org/rfc/82.pod?
I hadn't. I'm surprised it didn't give the PDL people screaming fits.
But no, I wouldn't do it like that. It has:
@b = (1,2,3);
@c = (2,4,6);
@d = @b * @c; # Returns (2,8,18)
Where I would h
i have to put my 2 cents in...
after reading all the discussion so far about the Schwartz,
i feel that map{} sort map{} is perfect in it's syntax.
if you code and understand Perl (i've seen situations where
these aren't always both happening at the time) and knowingly
use the building block fun
On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 11:13:47PM -0500, John Porter wrote:
> Brent Dax wrote:
> > Someone else showed a very ugly syntax with an anonymous
> > hash, and I was out to prove there was a prettier way to do it.
> Do we want prettier? Or do we want more useful?
> Perl is not exactly known for its pr
