On 4/30/18 9:10 AM, Vern Paxson wrote:
> The question then was what would be the new "v op e" syntax. > The best we could come up with (which we both found not-too-awful) is > "vector(v op e)". Wrapped in "vector(...)", the operation becomes the > current semantics (apply "op e" separately to each element of v). Maybe "vectorize(v op e)" ? Implies implementing via SIMD instructions. > "v op e" by itself would now be an error (which could point the user > at the "vector(...)" syntax as possibly providing what they're looking > for). "v += e" would be "append e to v". That still seems odd to me. If "v += e" means "append", then I might expect "v + e" to do the same, except producing a new value w/ original vector not modified. Maybe that's a less common use-case, though, and so "v op e" being an error would be less weird than suddenly changing the meaning of that operation. - Jon _______________________________________________ bro-dev mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.icsi.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/bro-dev
