At Fri, 3 Sep 2004 17:08:00 -0700,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Larry Wall) wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 05:45:12PM -0600, John Williams wrote:
> : If not, does @ints[-1] mean the element with index -1 or the last element?
>
> The element with index -1. Arrays with explicit ranges don't use the
> minus notation to count from the end. We probably need to come up
> with some other notation for the beginning and end indexes. But it'd
> be nice if that were a little shorter than:
>
> @ints.shape[0].beg
> @ints.shape[0].end
>
> Suggestions? Maybe we just need integers with "whence" properties... :-)
I think "@ints[-11]" is the obvious choice!
Also, it might be a decent default to have array parameters (or any
bindings) automatically readjust their indices to [0..$#array] unless
explicitly declared otherwise:
sub f1(@a) { @a[0] }
sub f2(@a is shape(:natural)) { @a[0] }
sub f3(@a is shape(-2..(-2 + @a.len))) { @a[0] }
my @array is shape(-1..1) = 1..3;
f1(@a); # ==> 1
f2(@a); # ==> 2
f3(@a); # ==> 3
That way, any code using non-zero-based indices would be clearly
marked as such, which seems prudent -- I know I don't use "$[" where
appropriate, and usually assume that "$#x + 1 == @x".
/s
