> hash ^[op] hash
> ...
> array ^[op] scalar
ie, generally:
term ^[op] term
> what to do if @a, @b in @a ^[op] @b have different length
> what to do if %a, %b in %a ^[op] %b have not the same set of keys
> what to do in %a ^[op] @a
>
> [what to do] resolved by hash property :
I'd expect adverbs rather than adjectives for these sorts
of issues, ie ':' modifiers of vectorization rather than use
of variable/value properties.
> @a ???[op] @b = [ array of @a[x] op @a[y] for all pairs x,y ]
>
> this path have no end, but where to stop ??
b4p6>J! ;> (http://jsoftware.com/)
Seriously, I also think it's worth seeing where this goes.
As noted above, I'd expect use of adverbs to allow
modification of hyperactivity:
%a ^[op] %b : union
Of course, this suffers the obtw problem. An alternative
might be:
%a ^:union[op] %b
I can definitely see scope for wanting separate adverbs
to influence how vectorization works on the lhs and rhs.
Perhaps
%a :foo[op]:bar %b
where I'm assuming :[op] instead of ^[op] as the base
syntax for vectorization.
--
ralph
