Norbert Nemec: > Just note that the slice operator "a..b" > should also allow strided slicing "a..b:c"
I have asked for this ages ago :o) But at that time there was no laziness and ranges in Phobos, so that was not very useful. > Yea, seems like I missed some important decisions. May indeed be too > late for some ideas. Still - not giving up quite yet. D won't be frozen forever, eventually few new things will be added, for example in D3. For example probably some of the limits of CTFE will be removed. Even C language and Fortran keep having changes every ten years or so. What will be hard to do are changes/removals. It's important to tell apart additive changes (like the ones you ask, like using 0 and $ as default bounds when they are missing, or adding a stride) from breaking changes (like replacing .. with a : ). I didn't understand this essential difference until too much late. > Admitted, the last case does not work quite as nicely with ".." as it > does with Python's ":". Still, the point should be clear. I have never understood why Walter has adopted .. for slices instead of the better : I'd like to know why. Bye, bearophile
