Front page | perl.perl6.language | Postings from January 2004

## RE: Semantics of vector operations

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Austin Hastings
Date:
January 22, 2004 10:04
Subject:
RE: Semantics of vector operations
Message ID:
ICELKKFHGNOHCNCCCBKFOEKCCJAA.Austin_Hastings@Yahoo.com
```

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Wall [mailto:larry@wall.org]
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 12:39 PM
> To: Language List
> Subject: Re: Semantics of vector operations
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 03:53:04AM +0100, A. Pagaltzis wrote:
> : Good point; however, this means different way to think of the
> : vector ops than we had so far. Basically, we're moving from the
> : realm of vector ops to that of vectorized operands.
> :
> : In light of this, I think Austin's proposal of marking the
> : operands as vectorized makes a lot of sense. It was an unexpected
> : that had me taken aback for a moment, but I like it more the more
> : I think about it. It *feels* right to emphasize vectorization as
> : something that happens to an operand, rather than something
> : that's a property of the operation.
>
> I think some people will want to think of it one way, while others
> will want to think of it the other way.  If that's the case, the
> proper place to put the marker is between the operand and the operator.
>

How do you handle operator precedence/associativity?

That is,

\$a + \$b + \$c

If you're going to vectorize, and combine, then you'll want to group. I
think making the vectorizer a grouper as well kills two birds with one
stone.

\$a + >>\$b + \$c<<

vs.

\$a +<< (\$b + \$c)

> You might argue that we should force people to think of it one way or
> the other.  But there's a reason that some people will think of it
> one way while others will think of it the other way--I'd argue that
> vectorization is not something that happens to *either* the operand
> or the operator.  Vectorization is a different *relationship* between
> the operator and the operand.  As such, I still think it belongs
> between.
>
> Plus, in the symmetrical case, it *looks* symmetrical.  Marking the
> args in front makes everything look asymmetrical whether it is or not.

Just a refresher, what *exactly* does vectorization do, again?  I think of
it as smart list-plus-times behavior, but when we go into matrix arithmetic,
that doesn't hold up. Luke?

=Austin

```
Thread Previous | Thread Next

nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About