Don <[email protected]> wrote: > On 10.10.2011 04:41, kenji hara wrote: >> 2011/10/10 bearophile<[email protected]>: >>> So is this: >>> y[$-6, 0..$:2] >>> >>> Translated like this? >>> y.opIndex(y.opDollar!0 - 6, y.opSlice!1(0, y.opDollar!1, 2)) >> >> I have no thought about it. >> I'm not sure that the additional stepping is really useful, but I >> think adding it into syntax is not impossible -- it might not conflict >> with associative array literal. >> >> Kenji Hara > > Personally, I think that since strided operations are so inefficient, > they should remain ugly.
Slicing an nD static array is just as in/efficient as strides. That said, I'm still -1 on having a..b:c since (1) I see no practical need for strides and (2) even if we striding it doesn't need to be in the form a..b:c, e.g. arr[stride(0..$, 2)].
