start on SIMD documentation

[Mehrdad]

On 1/13/2012 3:51 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 1/13/12 5:06 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:
>> On 13/01/12 10:31 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> On 1/13/12 2:41 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>>> On 1/13/2012 12:27 PM, Peter Alexander wrote:
>>>>> On 13/01/12 8:02 PM, Mehrdad wrote:
>>>>>> Er... is there any reason why we're using such a cryptic PXOR value
>>>>>> instead of operator overloading?
>>>>>
>>>>> I imagine Walter will add the operator overloads later.
>>>>
>>>> Right. simd() is just the bottom layer building block. It's a compiler
>>>> intrinsic, and I don't want to make every overload a compiler 
>>>> intrinsic.
>>>
>>> People will want to pass a variable for op. Would that work?
>>
>> Why would people want to do that?
>>
>> Also, no, it can't possibly work. It just makes no sense.
>>
>
> My point exactly. The chosen syntax must be fixed.
>
> Andrei
Still don't understand why we're not doing it with operator overloading 
instead...