> I agree with Tuomas' assessment. We would certainly love to dispense
> with
> the need for PDL if perl6 offered something along these lines.
> But PDL is much more than an efficient memory representation for typed
> N-D arrays. Above Jeremy suggests that most of the rest of the PDL core
> is already proposed in one form or another.
>
> Is that really true? There are a number of absolute conerstones
> of functionality/semantics that are implemented in the current PDL Core
> which any
> replacement *must* have or improve upon to be really useful for us: PDL
> threading, PDL dataflow + smart references (slicing), the PP code
> generator to generate all the glue code for PDL functions and library
> interfaces. This crucial functionality (that I don't see in any RFCs
> yet) currently takes about 10000 lines of C and XS code for the core +
> ~7000 lines of perl for the code generator (which will probably have to
> be rewritten as well). Without those features we will still need an
> object that does what piddles do now and our own core.
Could someone heavily into PDL guts write a summary on the required
data structures (and algorithms?) If the summary could be in the form
of a Perl 5 RFC, the better. "Requirements of a Mathematically
Inclined Camel, Mk VI"
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
