On 14/01/12 7:30 AM, Mehrdad wrote:
On 1/13/2012 3:51 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 1/13/12 5:06 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:
On 13/01/12 10:31 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 1/13/12 2:41 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 1/13/2012 12:27 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:
On 13/01/12 8:02 PM, Mehrdad wrote:
Er... is there any reason why we're using such a cryptic PXOR value
instead of operator overloading?
I imagine Walter will add the operator overloads later.
Right. simd() is just the bottom layer building block. It's a compiler
intrinsic, and I don't want to make every overload a compiler
intrinsic.
People will want to pass a variable for op. Would that work?
Why would people want to do that?
Also, no, it can't possibly work. It just makes no sense.
My point exactly. The chosen syntax must be fixed.
Andrei
Still don't understand why we're not doing it with operator overloading
instead...
How do you do a vector shuffle with operator overloading?
