An older attempt at this can be found here: https://gist.github.com/alsam/8283205
On Sunday, September 27, 2015, Tom Breloff <[email protected]> wrote: > Do you need the bracket notarion 'x[-5]'? This would be best implemented > as a package with explicit get/set, as Matt implied... As otherwise you > risk some tricky bugs. Also if you're implementing "array-like" types, I > would definitely use 0.4+. > > On Sunday, September 27, 2015, Matt Bauman <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > >> There has been a lot of discussion about this in the past few weeks >> >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/julia-users/ScwXMfQIBGs/wD1HTXeZBQAJ >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/julia-users/fNisYpMdZ6o/DvFaQi_ZBAAJ >> >> TL;DR, yes, it is possible, but it takes some care since it's violating a >> fairly well-entrenched assumption about how arrays behave. >> >> On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 10:48:22 AM UTC-4, Mark Sherlock wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I work in computational physics. The main reason we all use Fortran in >>> my area is because it allows arrays to have negative indices. This is very >>> useful when solving some partial differential equations (in e.g. plasma >>> physics, astrophysics, fluid mechanics). >>> >>> I and my colleagues frequently consider alternative languages but in the >>> end never change due to the headaches involved regarding this. Since Julia >>> seems to be focused on computational science, >>> I am wondering how likely it is that this would ever be implemented, >>> and/or how we could encourage the developers to do this? >>> >>> In all other areas Julia looks fantastic for our needs! >>> >>
