TSa:
Perhaps we
can live with the numerically lower end always beeing part
of the range, the larger one never,
I don't think so.
0 .. 5 == ( 0, 1, 2, 3, 4)
{ action } for 0 .. 5
is supposed to run for 0,1,2,3,4,5.
But '0 .. ^5' should not mean '( 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)' just because
HaloO,
Michele Dondi wrote:
IMHO the former is much more useful and common. Mathematically (say, in
combinatorics or however dealing with integers) when I happen to have to
do with a set of $n elements chances are to a large extent that it is
either 0..$n or 1..$n; 0..$n may lead to confusion
HaloO,
0 .. 5 == ( 0, 1, 2, 3, 4)
Hmm, and 0..5.1 == (0,1,2,3,4,5) to rescue the end.
--
Juerd:
Ruud H.G. van Tol:
Doesn't ^5 encourage [EMAIL PROTECTED] too much?
Can you explain when that creates a problem?
It's not about problems in execution,
That answers when not. :)
it's about expression.
Also if [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the multi-dimensional index zip?
Maybe someone
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Peter Scott wrote:
It seems strange to have a shortcut for 0..$n-1 but no shortcut for 0..$n.
IMHO the former is much more useful and common. Mathematically (say, in
combinatorics or however dealing with integers) when I happen to have to
do with a set of $n elements
Juerd:
Larry Wall:
[Peter Scott]:
It seems strange to have a shortcut for 0..$n-1 but no shortcut
for 0..$n.
But then you'd usually want 1..$n instead...
I think this illustrates very well that it's a bit silly to have a
shortcut for just one of the three much-used ranges.
But is it
Ruud H.G. van Tol skribis 2005-11-24 10:36 (+0100):
it's about expression.
Also if [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the multi-dimensional index zip?
No.
However, it does feel weird to have an *operator* that makes an array
behave in a certain way. Well, not weird, because we're used to context,
but
Ruud H.G. van Tol skribis 2005-11-24 12:25 (+0100):
[EMAIL PROTECTED]zip: @a.keys? @a.indices?
Special syntax, or special context?
Indices can be sets of sparse ranges. A sparse range is a set of
non-sparse ranges.
[7..13; 0..5, 9..Inf].
I have no objections to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Rob Kinyon skribis 2005-11-24 0:44 (-0500):
What about @array.indices instead?
Oops, I said indexes in a former message. Maybe a good candidate for
an alias?
Then, there's no possible fenceposting, your code is self-documenting,
and we're not introducing another unary operator?
++
Juerd
Juerd:
I have no objections to [EMAIL PROTECTED] returning a list of indexes, if that
is the definition.
It is what Mark suggested. Rob suggested to use .indices instead.
Looking at 'elem(ent)s' and 'ind(exe)s' and 'ind(ice)s', I toss up
'inds' or 'ixs'.
I do object to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Juerd:
Rob Kinyon:
What about @array.indices instead?
Oops, I said indexes in a former message.
AFAIK they share most of their meanings nowadays.
(My old Chambers says that indexes are books.)
Maybe a good candidate for an alias?
No doubt about it.
--
Affijn, Ruud
Gewoon is een
HaloO,
Ruud H.G. van Tol wrote:
Yes, it could use a step:
^42.7 = (0, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35)
^42.-7 = (35, 28, 21, 14, 7, 0)
OK, fine if the step sign indicates reversal after creation.
That is, the modulus is 7 in both cases.
^-42.7 = (-35, -28, -21, -14, -7, 0)
^-42.-7 = (0, -7, -14,
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 12:08:44AM +0100, Stéphane Payrard wrote:
: What about array with holes as supported by Parrot?
We have prior art with hashes, but it's not clear how well that maps
across.
: Does .elems return the number of elements with or without
: the holes?
In Perl 5, non-existing
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 12:42:25PM +0100, Juerd wrote:
: Ruud H.G. van Tol skribis 2005-11-24 10:36 (+0100):
: it's about expression.
: Also if [EMAIL PROTECTED] is the multi-dimensional index zip?
:
: No.
:
: However, it does feel weird to have an *operator* that makes an array
: behave in a
If .indexes turns out to be used a lot, then let's have .i -- i for
index is accepted abbreviation, isn't it? (Think for (i = 0; ...;
...))
+1 here. I too find ^$n a bit bizarre, but I like the look of
for @foo.i
OTOH, I like the parallels between %foo.keys and @foo.keys -- it recalls
the
TSa:
HaloO,
Hi!
Ruud H.G. van Tol:
Yes, it could use a step:
^42.7 = (0, 7, 14, 21, 28, 35)
^42.-7 = (35, 28, 21, 14, 7, 0)
OK, fine if the step sign indicates reversal after creation.
That is, the modulus is 7 in both cases.
^-42.7 = (-35, -28, -21, -14, -7, 0)
^-42.-7 = (0,
On 11/23/05, Rob Kinyon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/22/05, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
for ^5 { say } # 0, 1, 2, 3, 4
I read this and I'm trying to figure out why P6 needs a unary operator
for something that is an additional character written the more legible
way.
Huh?
Larry Wall:
for ^5 { say } # 0, 1, 2, 3, 4
The 'for' can go if a list (and also an array) would imply looping, when
it is positioned next to a block:
a. say (0..4);
b. { say; say } (0..4);
c. (0..4) { say; say }
d. @{0..4} { say; say }
(etc.)
b. now produces 2 lines with 01234 (in
On Wed, 23 Nov 2005, Ruud H.G. van Tol wrote:
for ^5 { say } # 0, 1, 2, 3, 4
The 'for' can go if a list (and also an array) would imply looping, when
it is positioned next to a block:
a. say (0..4);
b. { say; say } (0..4);
I'm not really sure: while I like it for its conciseness -and
Luke~
On 11/23/05, Luke Palmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/23/05, Rob Kinyon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/22/05, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
for ^5 { say } # 0, 1, 2, 3, 4
I read this and I'm trying to figure out why P6 needs a unary operator
for something that is
Rob Kinyon skribis 2005-11-23 11:58 (-0500):
I don't use 0..$n-1 very often. I use 0..$#arr most often.
Good point. Doesn't ^5 encourage [EMAIL PROTECTED] too much? After all, we
should
write what we mean, instead of something that happens to evaluate to the
same list. We mean to use indexes,
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 02:23:51PM +0100, Ruud H.G. van Tol wrote:
: Larry Wall:
:
: for ^5 { say } # 0, 1, 2, 3, 4
:
: The 'for' can go if a list (and also an array) would imply looping, when
: it is positioned next to a block:
:
: a. say (0..4);
: b. { say; say } (0..4);
: c. (0..4)
Larry Wall skribis 2005-11-23 9:19 (-0800):
^5.each { say }
Without colon?
Juerd
--
http://convolution.nl/maak_juerd_blij.html
http://convolution.nl/make_juerd_happy.html
http://convolution.nl/gajigu_juerd_n.html
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 11:58:23AM -0500, Rob Kinyon wrote:
: Here's an issue - if ^$x would be one($x), then what will [EMAIL PROTECTED]
be? To
: me, that seems like it should be one(@x), which is entirely useful.
: Except, if I try and use it as [EMAIL PROTECTED] (which, to me, would be
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 11:55:35AM -0500, Matt Fowles wrote:
: I think using C ..5 to mean (0, 1, 2, 3, 4) would be a more
: sensible option. Makes sense to me at least.
That doesn't derive well from any of:
..
^..
..^
^..^
If the rule is you can omit the 0, then it's ..^5
Juerd:
Doesn't ^5 encourage [EMAIL PROTECTED] too much?
Can you explain when that creates a problem?
Maybe someone doing
for ([EMAIL PROTECTED])-$i { say @foo[$i] }
in stead of
say for @foo
After all, we should
write what we mean, instead of something that happens
to evaluate to the
Ruud H.G. van Tol skribis 2005-11-23 19:03 (+0100):
Doesn't ^5 encourage [EMAIL PROTECTED] too much?
Can you explain when that creates a problem?
It's not about problems in execution, it's about expression.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] returns the *number of elements*, not the index of the last
element
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 07:10:39PM +0100, Juerd wrote:
: Ruud H.G. van Tol skribis 2005-11-23 19:03 (+0100):
: Doesn't ^5 encourage [EMAIL PROTECTED] too much?
: Can you explain when that creates a problem?
:
: It's not about problems in execution, it's about expression.
:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 10:45:21AM -0800, Mark A. Biggar wrote:
: Actually I like that and think that ^$x should be 0..($x-1) and that
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] should be define to return the array's index set (usually
: 0..$#foo) but maybe something else for a non-zero based array.
Well, as I said
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 10:58:53AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: Well, as I said in my other reply, that's not a big problem for
: 1-dimensional arrays. But it does possibly make sense that ^ on a
: multidimensional array or hash would return a zip of all the key sets.
: Plus it generalizes ^%hash
Larry~
On 11/23/05, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 11:55:35AM -0500, Matt Fowles wrote:
: I think using C ..5 to mean (0, 1, 2, 3, 4) would be a more
: sensible option. Makes sense to me at least.
That doesn't derive well from any of:
..
^..
..^
LW == Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
LW One of the other reasons I like ^5 is that the uparrowness of it
LW naturally reads as up to 5. But for containers we could certainly
LW abstract it out to the domain.
it also harkens back to apl's iota op which did similar things. iota is
an
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 02:21:15PM -0500, Matt Fowles wrote:
: I like C ..^5 better than C ^5 actually. I was going for the
: rule that an omitted LHS was 0 and an omitted RHS was infinity (your
: probably cannot omit both).
But that only saves you 1 keystroke, and eliminates unary .. for any
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:34:12 -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
What tipped me over the edge, however, is that I want ^$x back for a unary
operator that is short for 0..^$x, that is, the range from 0 to $x - 1. I
kept wanting such an operator in revising S09. It also makes it easy to
write
for
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 08:04:32AM -0800, Peter Scott wrote:
: On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:34:12 -0800, Larry Wall wrote:
: What tipped me over the edge, however, is that I want ^$x back for a unary
: operator that is short for 0..^$x, that is, the range from 0 to $x - 1. I
: kept wanting such an
Larry Wall a écrit :
| On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 07:10:39PM +0100, Juerd wrote:
| : Ruud H.G. van Tol skribis 2005-11-23 19:03 (+0100):
| : Doesn't ^5 encourage [EMAIL PROTECTED] too much?
| : Can you explain when that creates a problem?
| :
| : It's not about problems in execution, it's about
Larry Wall skribis 2005-11-23 13:10 (-0800):
: It seems strange to have a shortcut for 0..$n-1 but no shortcut for 0..$n.
But then you'd usually want 1..$n instead...
I think this illustrates very well that it's a bit silly to have a
shortcut for just one of the three much-used ranges. My view
Juerd skribis 2005-11-24 0:39 (+0100):
Personally, I think even ^.., ^..^ and ..^ are too much, but that I can
live with.
For the record, I don't want to die if ^ is introduced. If it's there,
I'll use it. If using [EMAIL PROTECTED] becomes accepted style, I'll use it.
The live with isn't to
On 11/23/05, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: I'm also puzzled that you feel the need to write 0..$n-1 so often; there
: are so many alternatives to fenceposting in P5 that I almost never write
: an expression like that, so why is it cropping up that much in P6?
Couple reasons occur to
On 11/22/05, Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What tipped me over the edge, however, is that I want ^$x back for a
unary operator that is short for 0..^$x, that is, the range from 0
to $x - 1. I kept wanting such an operator in revising S09. It also
makes it easy to write
for ^5 {
40 matches
Mail list logo
