> I'm probably opening up a whole new can of worms here, but if we said
> that the following were both vector operators:
>
> ^ == intersection operator
> v == union operator
>
> then these could have potentially useful meanings on their *own* as set
> operators, as well as modifying oth
On Sat, Nov 02, 2002 at 02:18:44AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
snip ...
>
> in that case the vectorization is *compleatly* orthogonal to the
> details of op and we even can have something like
>
> @a ^[{ $^a > $^b ?? 1 :: ($^a,$^b) := ($^b,$^a) }] @b
>
I agree with all that you
I'm probably opening up a whole new can of worms here, but if we said that the
following were both vector operators:
^ == intersection operator
v == union operator
then these could have potentially useful meanings on their *own* as set
operators, as well as modifying other operat
>> So again, I don't see the difference between the two. ^[+]= and ^+= are
>> synonyms as far as I can see, and hence no need for the first form.
> Only in the absence of overloading, and only because we've naively defined
> array ops to always do "union" rather than "intersection". If there we
> > right, and what does this all mean? I have yet to see a good meaning
> > for
> > @array ^[+]= @array2 ...
>
> I think it's this:
>
> @a [+=] @b -> @a[x] += @b[x]
>
> @a [+]= @b -> @temp = @a [+] @b; a = @temp;
>
Ok, so the '=' isn't being explicitly vectorized. So -
@a ^[+]= @
> actually , ones we decide that ^ *is necessary for vectorization , we
> can allow other brackets , optional brackets ( where unambiguous ) ,
> and spaces inside the brackets :
>
> @a ^+= @b
> @a ^[+]= @b
> @a ^(+)= @b
> @a ^( + )= @b
> @a ^{ + }= @b
> @a ^{+}= @b
> @a ^[ + ]= @b
>
rig
> Maybe. I slightly prefer the first line right now.
> But it's close, and I think I've gotten too used to
> both notations to know what I'd think if I saw one
> or other for the first time, and I don't know what
> I'd think after a month of use of one or other. As
> I said, it's close. This will
Larry Wall writes:
> I think decent formatting would make it clearer:
>
> for@a; @b
> -> $x is rw; y {
>$x = $y[5];
> }
But this isn't very scalable:
for@a; @b;
@c; @d;
On Thu, Oct 31, 2002 at 01:36:20PM -0600, Me wrote:
> > > 1) Need a definite syntax for hypers
> > > ^[op] and <>
> > > have been most seriously proposed -- something that keeps a
> > > bracketed syntax, but solves ambiguity issues.
> >
> > hm. What was wrong with just '^' again?
>
> Right. I d
Michael Lazarro wrote:
> 1) Need a definite syntax for hypers
>^[op] and <>
> have been most seriously proposed -- something that keeps a
> bracketed syntax, but solves ambiguity issues.
hm. What was wrong with just '^' again? Reading the threads, it seems to have
gotten lost in the sh
10 matches
Mail list logo
