Nathan Wiger wrote: > I don't think array indices > are something that we should have to go to such lengths to get. I'd > rather have a somewhat-confusing ; or , based syntax than the above. If > anything that's *more* confusing and harder to read. > > -Nate you're right. What if they both worked? They're not mutually incompatible. -- David Nicol 816.235.1187 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Kansas City Perl Mongers will meet Sept. 20th at 7:00 in Westport Flea Market Bar & Grill http://tipjar.com/kcpm
- Re: Designing Perl 6 data crunching (wa... Jeremy Howard
- Re: Designing Perl 6 data crunching (wa... Christian Soeller
- Re: Designing Perl 6 data crunching (wa... Karl Glazebrook
- Re: n-dim matrices Baris
- a syntax derived from constant-time hash-based ... David L. Nicol
- Re: a syntax derived from constant-time has... Nathan Wiger
- Re: a syntax derived from constant-time... David L. Nicol
- Re: a syntax derived from constant-time... Nathan Wiger
- Re: a syntax derived from constant-time... David L. Nicol
- Re: a syntax derived from constant-time... Nathan Wiger
- Re: a syntax derived from constant-time... David L. Nicol
- Re: a syntax derived from constant-time... Karl Glazebrook
- Re: a syntax derived from constant-time... c . soeller
- Re: n-dim matrices Karl Glazebrook
- Re: n-dim matrices Buddha Buck
- Re: n-dim matrices Karl Glazebrook
- Re: n-dim matrices Buddha Buck
- Re: n-dim matrices Christian Soeller
- Re: n-dim matrices Buddha Buck
- Re: n-dim matrices Christian Soeller
- Re: n-dim matrices Karl Glazebrook