>What are these proposed radical changes? Ok, we have the slicing syntax
>issue and how to write 2D/3D matrices. Does it stop there? What are the
>other issues?
Actually nothing radical. I take it back. I am not disaggreeing with
current RFC's. And probably simple syntax parsing can be achieved with
functions similar to qw() for people who doesn't want to type lots of
commas and paranthesis. I just think current attitude prevents further
creativity in this list since everything new proposed probably will break
some strange perl syntax, which people won't willing to give up.
>What are the other issues?
I am sure there must be lots of issues. Even the most perfect language
would have problems.
I have and will probably write more ideas but I have to investigate more
before writing them and I am very busy until sep 14th.
Thanks.
Baris.
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 8/31/00 at 5:01 PM Christian Soeller wrote:
>Jeremy Howard wrote:
>>
>> Baris wrote:
>> > First of all I know that perl syntax has limitations and I understand
why
>> > the reasons of the new syntax proposals. And I think the syntax
proposals
>> > are pretty good if you accept the syntax limitations. I don't think
any of
>> > them do consider that if somebody will write a PDL program he will use
pdl
>> > constructs and functions 99% of the time. So it should be user
friendly
>> and
>> > this requires some radical changes in perl. But it looks like I am the
>> only
>> > one supporting this idea.
>
>What are these proposed radical changes? Ok, we have the slicing syntax
>issue and how to write 2D/3D matrices. Does it stop there? What are the
>other issues?
>
>> Creating a 'user friendly' data-crunching language should not be about
just
>> catering to Matlab users, or those needing to implement FFTs... I hope
that
>> we can make Perl more useful for all the people who have to analyse
their
>> web logs, or summarise their customer segments, or review survey
results, or
>> any of the many things Mere Mortals want to do. Effective array notation
in
>> Perl should make these things easy, fast, and intuitive to Perl users.
>
>There might still be a need for something for those people who need FFTs
>and work on really large blocks of data. The hope would be that a perl6
>PDL would fill such a gap and be more perlish than it is now. But again
>concrete syntax ideas are needed along with a clear statement of current
>weaknesses...
>
> Christian
