On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 03:59:00PM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
> Larry Wall wrote:
>
>> As for assignment-op forms, in the current "STD" grammar, feeds are
>> not currently even considered operators, but statement separators, so
>> there is no possibility of using them in an assignment metaoperator
>>
Larry Wall wrote:
As for assignment-op forms, in the current "STD" grammar, feeds are
not currently even considered operators, but statement separators, so
there is no possibility of using them in an assignment metaoperator
(or any other metaoperator, for that matter).
Feeds as a reduction cou
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 01:56:44PM -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
> S06 says that we need to say "eager" if (@in === @out). So:
>
> @data ==> eager map { $^x + 1 } ==> @data.
>
>
> Is it possible to modify a feed operator using the assignment meta-operator
> described in S02 and, if so, is the "eager"
On Fri, 2008-01-11 at 10:34 -0800, Dave Whipp wrote:
> Matthew Walton wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't agree with that at all. I think of arrays as ordered constructs,
> > so I'd want the default iteration over my array to happen in the order of
> > the indices.
>
> I guess that depends on whether you th
S06 says that we need to say "eager" if (@in === @out). So:
@data ==> eager map { $^x + 1 } ==> @data.
Is it possible to modify a feed operator using the assignment
meta-operator described in S02 and, if so, is the "eager" implict?
@data ==>= map { $_ + 1 };
Matthew Walton wrote:
I wouldn't agree with that at all. I think of arrays as ordered constructs,
so I'd want the default iteration over my array to happen in the order of
the indices.
I guess that depends on whether you think of the array as a list or as a
ram. I know that a group at microso
Springing out of the ashes (and a job where I have to write Java) for my
first post in years:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 13:13:11 -0800, Dave Whipp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree that adding a parallel "forall" (and similar statements) via a
> pragma will be easy if the appropriate underlying mach
