start on SIMD documentation

[Peter Alexander]

On 14/01/12 7:30 AM, Mehrdad wrote:
> 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...

How do you do a vector shuffle with operator overloading?