Front page | perl.perl6.internals |
Postings from September 2002
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 22:51:53 -0700 (PDT), Sean O'Rourke wrote: > On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Brent Dax wrote: > > Sean O'Rourke: > > # On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Brent Dax wrote: > > # > What if (say) @b is a two-dimensional array? > > # > > # Then you get "interesting values of undef" :). Seriously, I > > # suspect one of the following: > > # > > # 1 - runtime error > > # 2 - each row (or column) of @b numified to its length > > # 3 - the first element of each row/col of @b > > # 4 - the other arrays boosted to the highest dimension > > # > > # I like #2, because it is easy and keeps hyper-operation > > # simple. If those aren't just numeric operators, but some > > > > It's already been defined to be #4. Where? I just re-skimmed A3 and E3, but didn't find that. All A3 says is that scalars get promoted to arrays, which makes sense. Going any further doesn't necessarily DWIM. > Argh. Then I need to whinge a bit -- what if it's a ragged array? What > if different elements have different dimensions themselves, e.g. > "[1,[2,3]]"? I think there's serious can-of-worms potential here, and by > making hyping more "intelligent", we'll actually make it useful in fewer > cases. I defintely agree. Wouldn't it be simpler to just ignore the extra-dimensionality? Especially when it's a user defined operator; it could actually want one scalar and one array operand. Maybe we should have multiple carets to denote hyper-hyper-operators if that's what the user wants: @a = @b ^^* @c; If hyperoperators get transformed into loops behind the scenes, this shouldn't be too hard to implement. -- Peter Haworth pmh@edison.ioppublishing.com Override self destruct? (y/n@^%i@&$# NO CARRIERThread Previous | Thread Next