On 7/10/2013 5:28 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 7/10/2013 4:30 PM, Kelly Kearney wrote:
>> dpb <none@non.net> wrote in message
>> <krke4s$htn$1@speranza.aioe.org>...
>>> On 7/10/2013 2:22 PM, Eric Sampson wrote:
>>>> dpb <none@non.net> wrote in message
>>> <krk9mr$5c5$1@speranza.aioe.org>... ...
>>>
>>> .. wanting a way to hold a temporary variable or other syntax to
>>> eliminate temporaries for optional return variables...
>>>
>>> ...
> ...
>
>>> Not sure there is a general solution, unfortunately.
>>
>> There is... write a new function. :-) I got very tired of this
>> accumarray limitation,...
And, actually I forgot to mention again that I see it as a desirable
enhancement beyond just accumarray and friends; I have lots of times
when the index variable or somesuch that is an optional output of many
functions is needed only in order to be immediately consumed by the
following code. It is just inconvenient to have those have to be
non-transitory simply owing to there not being any syntax to avoid it.
I've thought of trying out the idea of a proposal using some additional
scoping mechanism but not to the point of actually trying to get it to
the point of being a serious request for enhancement (and, of course, w/
consideration might decide it's not the way to even suggest).
--![]()
> On 7/10/2013 4:30 PM, Kelly Kearney wrote:
>> dpb <none@non.net> wrote in message
>> <krke4s$htn$1@speranza.aioe.org>...
>>> On 7/10/2013 2:22 PM, Eric Sampson wrote:
>>>> dpb <none@non.net> wrote in message
>>> <krk9mr$5c5$1@speranza.aioe.org>... ...
>>>
>>> .. wanting a way to hold a temporary variable or other syntax to
>>> eliminate temporaries for optional return variables...
>>>
>>> ...
> ...
>
>>> Not sure there is a general solution, unfortunately.
>>
>> There is... write a new function. :-) I got very tired of this
>> accumarray limitation,...
And, actually I forgot to mention again that I see it as a desirable
enhancement beyond just accumarray and friends; I have lots of times
when the index variable or somesuch that is an optional output of many
functions is needed only in order to be immediately consumed by the
following code. It is just inconvenient to have those have to be
non-transitory simply owing to there not being any syntax to avoid it.
I've thought of trying out the idea of a proposal using some additional
scoping mechanism but not to the point of actually trying to get it to
the point of being a serious request for enhancement (and, of course, w/
consideration might decide it's not the way to even suggest).
--