Re: RFC 231 (v1) Data: Multi-dimensional arrays/hashes and slices

On Mon, Sep 18, 2000 at 08:56:28AM -0400, Karl Glazebrook wrote:
> Firstly does your proposal allow for a slice like 10..20:2  (i.e. with
> a stride of 2) ?

As shipped: no.  But if this is made a primitive (which I would not
like), then the only change which is needed is to make the
tie::multi::range() token to be followed by 3 numbers.

[Aside: Why not make ternary-range operator into 10 :: 20 :: 2 ?]

> Secondly, what about having multidim support in the core so that the
> tie-tokenisers get optimised away? i.e. would we be able to
> say something like:
> 
> @x = @y[10..20; 1..3]
> 
> for core arrays

Yes, this is item 9 of the proposal.

> Finally as an overload expert what do you think about the proposals
> to make arrays overloadable objects so one can say things like:
> 
> @x = 3 * @y;

This is not an overloading issue, this is the context resolution
issue.  IMO, the cryptocontext turns out to be evil with an exception
of extremely short scripts - and this is with what we have now.

A proposal like this would make a nuisance into a nightmare.  Yes, it
looks nice, but it contradicts many rules, so in the long run it is
going to be a significant step back.

...Unless the whole idea of cryptocontext is turned to become something else...

Ilya