> > > $a[$i][$j][$k] or $a[$i,$j,$k]
> The second one has no useful meeting, "," is just an operator which
> does nothing much useful in this context.
Not true, at least not in the Perl I know. :-) Here's a description of
what these do in Perl just to clarify:
$a[0][1][2]; # get a singl
David L. Nicol writes:
> Looks like if we give the data type control over what
> the meaning of square brackets after it is, the rest
> becomes example code. I think this s covered in the
> horribly misnamed http://dev.perl.org/rfc/115.pod which
> covers overloading bracketing.
The big problem w
At 09:56 AM 8/26/00 +1200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Dan Sugalski wrote:
>
> > It looks like we need to be able to override operations on arrays, have
> > multi-dimensional arrays, and do some rather odd slicing operations that
> > give values still linked to the original matrices.
> >
> > Has any
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> It looks like we need to be able to override operations on arrays, have
> multi-dimensional arrays, and do some rather odd slicing operations that
> give values still linked to the original matrices.
>
> Has anyone asked for complex number support yet?
It's hidden in one o
"David L. Nicol" wrote:
>
> Looks like if we give the data type control over what
> the meaning of square brackets after it is, the rest
> becomes example code. I think this s covered in the
> horribly misnamed http://dev.perl.org/rfc/115.pod which
> covers overloading bracketing.
Agreed. We sh
Karl Glazebrook wrote:
> "->" really sucks as something to routinely type in to a interactive shell
> all the time. I hate it.
I can not agree more. It just seems terribly unnecessary.
Just allow us to directly overload some of the braces/parentheses for
objects.
I would be happy with
$pdl(0:
Karl Glazebrook wrote:
> The key from my point of view is to have enough syntactical
> hooks in the core so that using it is not like wading through
> treacle. Hence the PDL RFCs - especially on [] overloading and ranges.
>
> The Numerical Python people seem to have accomplished this, and we can
Dan Sugalski wrote:
> to make foo and bar 5x5x5 matricies that you casn multiply to get baz then,
> well, say it. If that means you need to define a way to provide overridden
> operators in the Matrix package, then go for it and say that.
>
> Let the -internals folks worry about the Weird Magic
At 01:11 PM 8/25/00 -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>Heh, we're on the same page here. I'm just setting the framework
>for that discussion. I don't think the PDL folks yet know what
>they want, other than "better support for numerical structures".
>
>I'm trying to see what's wrong with the exist
Nathan Torkington wrote:
>
> Karl Glazebrook writes:
> > I agree with your sentiments. Most people in PDL DO come from the
> > number crunching/scientific background.
>
> Whereas the rest of Perl users don't, and will probably never need the
> matrix manipulation stuff. I think a happy medium w
Nathan Torkington wrote:
> > (1) The current
> >
> >$pdl->slice("0:$n,(0)");
> >
> > syntax sucks.
>
> Would:
>
> $pdl->[0:$n][0][:]
>
> suffice? I figure this would translate into something like:
>
> $pdl->subscript( 0, $n )
> ->subscript( 0 )
> ->subscript( undef, undef
Looks like if we give the data type control over what
the meaning of square brackets after it is, the rest
becomes example code. I think this s covered in the
horribly misnamed http://dev.perl.org/rfc/115.pod which
covers overloading bracketing.
@reshaped = reshape $x, $y, $i, @array [,
Note that I am not subscribed to perl6-language-data, and that all the prior
discussion of
this RFC took place on -language. Perhaps it is better classified under -data, but
that's
not its present discussion list, according to the RFC.
"David L. Nicol" wrote:
> Glenn Linderman wrote:
>
> > Ed
>Right you are. I'm still living in the 20th century :-)
So are all of us -- just give it a few months, though. :-)
--tom
Tom Christiansen writes:
> >> >Also, there are many array operations (push, pop, etc) still not
> >> >supported by tie.
>
> Eh? Either that's no longer true, or we're doing the time warp again.
Right you are. I'm still living in the 20th century :-)
Nat
>> >The problem is that you can tie() an array, but an object is a scalar.
Yes, Python unifies these.
>> >Also, there are many array operations (push, pop, etc) still not
>> >supported by tie.
Eh? Either that's no longer true, or we're doing the time warp again.
--tom
Dan Sugalski writes:
> Sure, it's handwaving, but it's handwaving with a purpose. What I don't
> want is for people to get bogged down by the limits of what perl 5
> provides, or what looks to be some sort of reasonable extrapolation
> of those features.
>
> If a fully working tie's what you
At 12:38 PM 8/25/00 -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>Dan Sugalski writes:
> > The operative word in that last sentence is "Currently"...
> >
> > >The problem is that you can tie() an array, but an object is a scalar.
> > >Also, there are many array operations (push, pop, etc) still not
> > >suppor
Dan Sugalski writes:
> The operative word in that last sentence is "Currently"...
>
> >The problem is that you can tie() an array, but an object is a scalar.
> >Also, there are many array operations (push, pop, etc) still not
> >supported by tie. tie makes assumptions about arrays that are perha
At 12:11 PM 8/25/00 -0600, Nathan Torkington wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > (1) The current
> >
> >$pdl->slice("0:$n,(0)");
> >
> > syntax sucks.
>
>Would:
>
> $pdl->[0:$n][0][:]
>
>suffice? I figure this would translate into something like:
>
> $pdl->subscript( 0, $n )
> ->s
Karl Glazebrook writes:
> I agree with your sentiments. Most people in PDL DO come from the
> number crunching/scientific background.
Whereas the rest of Perl users don't, and will probably never need the
matrix manipulation stuff. I think a happy medium would be to provide
core support for oper
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> These are some of the current issues that we have identified:
Excellent! Thanks for this.
> (1) The current
>
>$pdl->slice("0:$n,(0)");
>
> syntax sucks.
Would:
$pdl->[0:$n][0][:]
suffice? I figure this would translate into something like:
$pdl->subscr
Glenn Linderman wrote:
> Edwin's arguments against the idea seem reasonable; I think it would take some
> compelling benefit to invest in implementing a C type & structure parser in perl, for
> this use. Further, the C syntax doesn't provide for explicitly sized types, and what
> would you do wi
Edwin Wiles wrote:
> Maintainer Statement:
> Okay, I've added a note that wholesale adoption of C structure
> definitions, with appropriate modifications, has been suggested.
> However, if you really want it seriously documented, you'll have to
> write it up.
I did. Three or four times
Hi Baris,
I agree with your sentiments. Most people in PDL DO come from the
number crunching/scientific background.
I would say that a matrix is just a special case of a general
N-dimensional compact array which obeys various rules. PDL
supplies a matrix-mult operator ("x") and other matrix ops
Nathan Wiger wrote:
>
> > OK here is a basic question: how do we specify element access in
> > PDL type arrays?
> >
> > $a[$i][$j][$k] or $a[$i,$j,$k]
>
> Both of these already have firm meaning in Perl. The second one is used
> to bite off selected elements of an array. So if you want a differe
> I'm here because:
> * I think the PDL folks have valid needs
> * I think a lot of people are having trouble making suggestions for
>language changes that mesh well with other constructs in the
>language.
> * I'm not able to tell you want you need, but I will try to help
>you come
27 matches
Mail list logo
