Front page | perl.perl6.language.data |
Postings from September 2000
Nathan Torkington wrote: > Jeremy Howard writes: > > No, there's no arbitrary decision. *Every* operator is component wise on > > lists. It is internally consistent, and consistent with most other languages > > that provide array/list operators. It's easy to get stuck on the '*' > > example, because different mathematicians have different feelings about what > > matrix operation should map to '*'. However, there is no consistant and > > meaningful definition of array operations (for _all_ operators) other than > > that defined in RFC 82. > > > Actually, the only refinement I'd like to see is that boolean operators > (==, &&, ||) be excepted from the distributive rule. > > This is to permit: > > if (@a == @b) # shallow comparison Already works under the RFC (scalar context). > > and > > @a = @b || @c; # @a=@b or @a=@c; # ish > Doesn't work in P5 (try it!) > The math operations are fine to apply to each element. I have no > problem with those being distributive, but I think || for default > values and == for comparison are too ingrained and they'd be too > useful (as opposed to a distributive || or &&, which is much less > useful). > == is applied in a scalar context--fine. || as you show it can not be ingrained because it doesn't currently work this way!Thread Previous | Thread Next