>but surely wouldn't warrant a new data type.
There is no relation between my proposal in this email for special 2-d
syntax and having a new type for pdl's.
Baris.
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 8/30/00 at 8:06 AM Christian Soeller wrote:
>Baris Sumengen wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> On 8/29/00 at 2:31 PM Jeremy Howard wrote:
>>
>> >The role of this list is to try and create the features necessary to
make
>> >Perl the best language for data crunching around, while keeping it
>> Perlish.
>>
>> "Easy things should be easy".
>>
>
>> For example to create a new 3x4 matrix you should write:
>> $m = pdl [1, 2, 3],
>> [3, 3, 4],
>> [2, 4, 5],
>> [2, 4, 6];
>>
>> I find this painful and would prefer:
>> $m = pdl [1 2 3,
>> 3 3 4,
>> 2 4 5,
>> 2 4 6];
>
>That should be comparatively easy to get for perl6 (maybe using source
>filters) but surely wouldn't warrant a new data type. Unless you have a
>bunch of other examples that drive the point home?
>
> Christian
