> Larry Wall:
>> [Peter Scott]:

>>> It seems strange to have a shortcut for 0..$n-1 but no shortcut
>>> for 0..$n.
>> But then you'd usually want 1..$n instead...
> I think this illustrates very well that it's a bit silly to have a
> shortcut for just one of the three much-used ranges.

But is it (just) that?

  ^5     0 .. 4
  ^$n    0 .. $n-1
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]   0 .. @a.elems-1 (usage deserves a warning)
  [EMAIL PROTECTED]    zip: @a.keys? @a.indices?
  ??     0 .. @a.last-1  (no sc ncsry, prbly no need @all)
  ??     1 .. $n         (no sc ncsry, or use base-0)
  ??     0 .. $n+1       (no sc ncsry)

> Indexes and numbers (counts) just aren't the same thing, and I think
> source code should communicate meaning using the right words.

Indices can be sets of sparse ranges. A sparse range is a set of
non-sparse ranges.
[7..13; 0..5, 9..Inf].

> The word
> for "the last index" is .last, that of "the number of elements" is
> .elems, or [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you need the last index, plus one, you 
> shouldn't
> use the number of elements, and if you need the number of elements,
> minus one, you shouldn't use the last index. Am I the only one who
> cares about this distinction?


Grtz, Ruud

Reply via email to