Re: RFC 179 (v1) More functions from set theory to manipulate arrays

[Chaim Frenkel]

>>>>> "TC" == Tom Christiansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

TC> General cases should be preferred over special ones.

TC> We've never had named aggregate functions in Perl before that work
TC> like infix operators.  What is the general proposal out of which this
TC> would intuitively decend?

Sorry, I'm not understanding your question.

        1+2 = 3
        2*2 = 4

        (1,2,3) U (2,3,5) = (1,2,3,5)
        (1,2,3) ^ (2,3,5) = (2,3)
        (1,2,3) x (2,3,5) = ((1,2),(1,3), (1,5), (2,2), (2,3), (2,5) ...)
                                # yes, no nested lists. But what about
                                # n-dim arrays/matrices/tensors/whatevers

Seems just as useful as sin, cos, tan, **, and the other mathematical
operations. And the proposals to make matrix operations ala Basic's MAT.

Unless you want to go with

        my Set (@a, @b, @c);            # Is the type distributive?
        
        @c = @a - @b;
        @c = @a + @b;
        @c = @a * @b;                   # cross product ?

I'm not understaning your position. I could have used such an operation
rather than rolling my own. And a module would be too heavy handed for
such a simple concept.

<chaim>
-- 
Chaim Frenkel                                        Nonlinear Knowledge, Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]                                               +1-718-236-0183