On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 03:53:04AM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote: : Good point; however, this means different way to think of the : vector ops than we had so far. Basically, we're moving from the : realm of vector ops to that of vectorized operands. : : In light of this, I think Austin's proposal of marking the : operands as vectorized makes a lot of sense. It was an unexpected : that had me taken aback for a moment, but I like it more the more : I think about it. It *feels* right to emphasize vectorization as : something that happens to an operand, rather than something : that's a property of the operation.
I think some people will want to think of it one way, while others will want to think of it the other way. If that's the case, the proper place to put the marker is between the operand and the operator. You might argue that we should force people to think of it one way or the other. But there's a reason that some people will think of it one way while others will think of it the other way--I'd argue that vectorization is not something that happens to *either* the operand or the operator. Vectorization is a different *relationship* between the operator and the operand. As such, I still think it belongs between. Plus, in the symmetrical case, it *looks* symmetrical. Marking the args in front makes everything look asymmetrical whether it is or not. Larry
