On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 10:56 PM, Tony Balinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quoting Bert Wesarg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Joachim Lous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 6:23 AM, Tony Balinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > A bit misleading this: if you have the array
> > > > arr[0] = 0
> > > > arr[1] = 1
> > > > arr["key0"] = 2
> > > > arr["key1"] = 3
> > > > adding arr[] = 999 will provide arr[2], not arr[4] as I would expect
> > from the
> > > > right-hand-side behaviour of arr[] (it's not the same as arr[arr[]] =
> > 999). I
> > > > find this counter-intuitive.
> > >
> > > Maybe so, but the only other common languages I know that mix numeric
> > > and associative arrays in the same object are Javascript and PHP, and
> > > both assign numeric keys in this way when you push an unnamed value
> > > into an array (although with Javascript you have to call "push", not
> > > just use an empty bracket)
>
> > >
> > I didn't know about JS, but I have modeled this after the PHP behaviour.
> >
> > But I can understand the point from Tony and Aaron.
> >
> > Maybe a drastically syntax extension is needed:
> >
> > rvalue: [EMAIL PROTECTED] := return max numeric index + 1
> > lvalue: [EMAIL PROTECTED] = expr := push expr at position max numeric
> index + 1
>
> A "push()" function would work. I don't much like in the above the
> notion of lhs [EMAIL PROTECTED] accessing an element while rhs [EMAIL
> PROTECTED] gives an index.
> With the above rules, the following statements are equivalent:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] = expr
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] = expr
Thats right and was intended in this suggestion.
>
> I see the following needs:
> 1. "reseating" indices (starting at 0 to starting at 1, say);
> 2. removing holes in a sequence;
> 3. concatenating sequences;
> 4. finding first and last index values.
>
> How about shift operators? (These don't exist for integers yet BTW)
> They would shift indices as follows:
> eg
> arr >>= 1 # reorganise num indices to start with 1 in array arr
> arr <<= 10 # reorganise num indices to end with 10-1 in array arr
>
> the result contains a sequence in which all numeric indices have been
> renumbered with consecutive indices (perhaps negative) to satisfy the
> contraint of a fixed start/end position. So, given the args() function
> ("define args { return $args }") and my anonymous array constructor
> syntax,
>
> args(1, 2, 3, .hello="hi") equals { 1, 2, 3, .hello = "hi" } >> 1
>
> When both arguments to shift are arrays:
>
> arr2 >> arr1 # an array where sequence arr2 has indices after arr1
> arr1 << arr2 # the opposite
> arr1 <<= arr2 # add arr2 sequence to end of arr1
> arr1 <<= { value } # add a value to the end of the sequence in arr1
>
> For each of these, numeric indices are compacted to start at the lowest
> valued index from arr1 and grow consecutively to address all numerically
> accessed values up to the last from arr2, while doing the equivalent of
> arr1 + arr2 for string-accessed values (ie the union of string indices,
> with, for duplicate indices, values taken from arr2).
>
> Or maybe just allow array concatenation to do that:
> arr1 arr2
>
> Hmmm.
Nice thoughts.
Bert
>
> Tony
--
NEdit Develop mailing list - [email protected]
http://www.nedit.org/mailman/listinfo/develop
