Re: Special syntax for 2-d

>but surely wouldn't warrant a new data type. 
There is no relation between my proposal in this email for special 2-d
syntax and having a new type for pdl's.
Baris.


*********** REPLY SEPARATOR  ***********

On 8/30/00 at 8:06 AM Christian Soeller wrote:

>Baris Sumengen wrote:
>> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> On 8/29/00 at 2:31 PM Jeremy Howard wrote:
>> 
>> >The role of this list is to try and create the features necessary to
make
>> >Perl the best language for data crunching around, while keeping it
>> Perlish.
>> 
>> "Easy things should be easy".
>> 
>
>> For example to create a new 3x4 matrix you should write:
>> $m = pdl [1, 2, 3],
>>               [3, 3, 4],
>>               [2, 4, 5],
>>               [2, 4, 6];
>> 
>> I find this painful and would prefer:
>> $m = pdl [1 2 3,
>>                3 3 4,
>>                2 4 5,
>>                2 4 6];
>
>That should be comparatively easy to get for perl6 (maybe using source
>filters) but surely wouldn't warrant a new data type. Unless you have a
>bunch of other examples that drive the point home?
>
>  Christian