Larry Wall wrote:
Um, negative indices on shaped arrays were outlawed several hours ago...
Yeah; I hadn't gotten around to that when I posted this. Sorry about that.
--
Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 02:19:01PM -0800, Jonathan Lang wrote:
: It's the sort of thing that I could see using a trait for: 'my @array
: but oroborus' would invoke an implicit modulus on the index, while
: standard arrays would not. Likewise, those who don't want the
: backward-indexing semantics
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 09:23:33AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
> Since -0.0 is a possible Num representation, that last one probably works.
> But @array[-0] probably doesn't, since Int probably doesn't represent -0,
Well, it might just be using 1's complement :-)
Nicholas Clark
Larry Wall wrote:
TSa wrote:
: Luke Palmer wrote:
: >When do we do integer/rational math and when do we do floating point math?
:
: Since we have now flooring semantics on modulus and division I wonder
: how the coercion of nums to ints takes place. Does it also use floor?
: E.g. is @array[-0.3]
On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 06:02:59PM +0100, TSa wrote:
: HaloO,
:
: Luke Palmer wrote:
: >When do we do integer/rational math and when do we do floating point math?
:
: Since we have now flooring semantics on modulus and division I wonder
: how the coercion of nums to ints takes place. Does it also
