Farray is a mess. Here's the problem:
I'm considering both an array and a pointer to it as equivalent
array values. Also pointer to an array is considered as an array object.
The idea was: you cannot modify an array value. But if your array
is in a variable you can take the address to get an arr
On 22/06/2012, at 12:14 AM, john skaller wrote:
>
> Interestingly there's no problem with ^, the problem is with *.
> Felix can handle ^ because it's a left associative binary operator
> so any number of these can be handled by recursion (Felix type
> functions can be recursive). But operator *
On 21/06/2012, at 1:25 AM, john skaller wrote:
> I'm in the throws of trying to get multi-dimensional arrays working.
>
The problem here is that array access is implement in the library
bi a C binding. The combinator "EXPR_get_n" is only generated by
pattern matching.
So now the theory says,
I'm in the throws of trying to get multi-dimensional arrays working.
The theory behind this was developed by Barry Jay.
Basically, there's map:
(T ^ N) ^ M -> T ^ (N * M)
taking an array of arrays to a matrix. Example on values:
( (1,2), (3,4), (5,6) ) . 1 . 1 --> 4 (zero o
I'm removing a lot of hackery from Felix at the moment. A few issues remain
though: arrays and lvalues.
Lvalues are problematic. Originally, the idea was only to support pointers,
but it made
a lot of syntax untenable, eg: x++ so lvalues were introduced into the type
system.
Now they're gone a
On Wed, 2006-09-27 at 01:29 +1000, skaller wrote:
>
> It's really NOT clear how to make this all work properly,
> which is one reason why the development of extensible
> arrays in Felix is stalled. It isn't so hard to make
> it work for Felix objects. But for opaque C++ objects,
> extra informati
On Tue, 2006-09-26 at 07:46 -0700, James Dennett wrote:
> > the way STL handles
> > this is very inefficient.
> It's within a factor of 2 of optimal, no? What do you mean by
> "very" inefficient?
See below.
> > Using mmap/realloc is much faster,
> > but C++ does not provide a move or 'relocate'
skaller wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-09-26 at 21:47 +1000, Jonathan Kelly wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> am I right in deducing there are no arrays in felix, despite the
>> temptingly titled sections in the tute and ref man? I mean the sort of
>> arrays a C/C++ programmer would be thinking of, obviously.
>>
Hey,
skaller wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-09-26 at 21:47 +1000, Jonathan Kelly wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> am I right in deducing there are no arrays in felix, despite the
>> temptingly titled sections in the tute and ref man? I mean the sort of
>> arrays a C/C++ programmer would be thinking of, obviously
On Tue, 2006-09-26 at 21:47 +1000, Jonathan Kelly wrote:
> Hi,
>
> am I right in deducing there are no arrays in felix, despite the
> temptingly titled sections in the tute and ref man? I mean the sort of
> arrays a C/C++ programmer would be thinking of, obviously.
Felix has first class fixed l
Hi,
am I right in deducing there are no arrays in felix, despite the
temptingly titled sections in the tute and ref man? I mean the sort of
arrays a C/C++ programmer would be thinking of, obviously.
Jonathan.
-
Take Surv
11 matches
Mail list logo