Jeremy Howard wrote:
> We're talking about how we'll write Perl 6 programs, not PDL programs. We
> need to ensure that the syntax we create is Perlish. It needs to fit in with
> the rest of the language--our proposals won't get through if programs look
> quite different in sections just because ar
Jeremy Howard wrote:
> The 1st implementation of Perl 6 may not provide all the optimisations we've
> come to expect from our data crunching language of choice. For this reason
> maybe PDL will continue to exist independently in Perl 6 at least for a
> while, although a fair bit of rewriting will
Christian Soeller wrote:
> There might still be a need for something for those people who need FFTs
> and work on really large blocks of data. The hope would be that a perl6
> PDL would fill such a gap and be more perlish than it is now. But again
> concrete syntax ideas are needed along with a cl
Baris wrote:
> >We're talking about how we'll write Perl 6 programs, not PDL programs. We
> >need to ensure that the syntax we create is Perlish.
> Aggreed.
> But there is nothing wrong with making the syntax user friendly, or am I
> totally missing what perl is?
Perl is user-friendly to Perl use
>What are these proposed radical changes? Ok, we have the slicing syntax
>issue and how to write 2D/3D matrices. Does it stop there? What are the
>other issues?
Actually nothing radical. I take it back. I am not disaggreeing with
current RFC's. And probably simple syntax parsing can be achieved w
>We're talking about how we'll write Perl 6 programs, not PDL programs. We
>need to ensure that the syntax we create is Perlish.
Aggreed.
But there is nothing wrong with making the syntax user friendly, or am I
totally missing what perl is?
Why do we have qw()?
Why do we have "=>" as an alias f
Jeremy Howard wrote:
>
> Baris wrote:
> > First of all I know that perl syntax has limitations and I understand why
> > the reasons of the new syntax proposals. And I think the syntax proposals
> > are pretty good if you accept the syntax limitations. I don't think any of
> > them do consider tha
Baris wrote:
> First of all I know that perl syntax has limitations and I understand why
> the reasons of the new syntax proposals. And I think the syntax proposals
> are pretty good if you accept the syntax limitations. I don't think any of
> them do consider that if somebody will write a PDL pro
