Re: hyper operators - appalling proposal

Trey Harris wrote: > Yes. This is my fear of hyperoperation being the default for normal > aggregates. Loops--and large, multiply-nested, potentially-infinite > ones--can spring out of code that doesn't look loopy at all. Erm... you > know what I mean. :-) > > Karl, do you have any objection

Re: 184 (v3): Perl should support an interactive mode

> > Very little discussion was generated by this RFC. Several people noted that perl -de >42 and the Perl shell psh already provide some > of what the RFC requests; this is noted in the RFC. > > The RFC is not being withdrawn, since 2 other people expressed (mild) interest in >it. I'd lik

Re: logical ops on arrays and hashes

Jeremy Howard wrote: > > > Of course they have reasonable meanings for arrays--element-wise operations > (RFC 82): > > http://tmtowtdi.perl.org/rfc/82.html > > Any operation you can do on a scalar you should be able to do element-wise > on a list, and certainly it's not hard to come up with si

Re: $a in @b

> Quantum::Superpositions provides this in a more flexible way by adding the > 'any' and 'all' keywords. > > Superpositions.pm> > > One of Damian Conway's many promised RFCs will cover in

Re: PDL-P: Matrix ops in perl 6 (was Re: Random items (old p5p issues))

Jeremy Howard wrote: > > > > @foo = @bar x 3; > > > > @foo = @bar * 4; > > > > @LoL = @foo * @bar; > > > > @baz =~ s/here/there/; > Exactly. Currently PDL provides a lot of the numeric side of this, but > wouldn't it be nice if perl 6 had the hooks in place to allow PDL to > integrate ev