Re: RFC 231 (v1) Data: Multi-dimensional arrays/hashes and slices

[Christian Soeller]

 
> Finally as an overload expert what do you think about the proposals
> to make arrays overloadable objects so one can say things like:
> 
> @x = 3 * @y;

Is this where RFC 231's suggestion for OO slicing comes in (see quote)?

> For example, 
> 
>        $matrix1->[2..5; 2..4] * $matrix2->[1,3,5; 11..64];
> 
>      would denote: create two new objects for the specified submatrices, apply 
>(overloaded) multiplication to these objects. Such a
>      request is illegal for untie()d arrays; for tie()d arrays it is converted to a 
>call to FETCH_SLICE in a scalar context.
>      (Alternative: introduce two new tie()d methods: FETCH_SUBOBJECT, 
>STORE_SUBOBJECT.) 

or is this supposed to be othogonal?

Another questing re RFC 231. Is it really required to make the
syntactical distinction between ranges (..) and bi_ranges (...)? Some
more explanation would be appreciated.

  Christian