vector vs. hyper

2002-10-29 Thread Uri Guttman 

damian's syntax table and his use of the term vectorizing made me wonder
why we call his [op] thing a hyperoperator? the word hyper i assume came
from hyperdimensional. but calling [] the vectorizing (or just vectored)
op variant makes much more sense.

@sum = @a [+] @b ;

that reads as vector add @a and @b

@sum [+]= @c ;

vector add @c into @sum.

@sum [+]= $c ;

vector add assign $d to all of @sum.


vector just has more history with this sort of operation. also damian's
choice of [] makes it look like a vector thingy.

so i will table a motion to rename hyper to vector and hope it doesn't
get warnocked.

uri

-- 
Uri Guttman  --  [EMAIL PROTECTED]   http://www.stemsystems.com
- Stem and Perl Development, Systems Architecture, Design and Coding 
Search or Offer Perl Jobs    http://jobs.perl.org

Re: vector vs. hyper

2002-10-29 Thread Dave Mitchell 
On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 02:55:57PM -0500, Uri Guttman wrote:
 
 damian's syntax table and his use of the term vectorizing made me wonder
 why we call his [op] thing a hyperoperator? the word hyper i assume came
 from hyperdimensional. but calling [] the vectorizing (or just vectored)
 op variant makes much more sense.

I vote for 'vector' too. I also really like the [] idea.

-- 
print+qq$}$$/$s$,$*${$}$g$s$$.$q$,$:$.$q$^$,$$*$~$;$.$q$mif+map{m,^\d{0\,},,${$::{$'}}=chr($+=$||1)}q10m22,42}6:17*2~2.33;^2$g3q/s=~m*\d\*.*g