David Green wrote:
> Jon Lang wrote:
>> Given that it's relatively easy to say "1..^*", I wouldn't mind
>> standardizing this so that '*' always refers to the element just past
>> the last one, at least when dealing with the standard index.
> I like the DWIMmery, but the more I think about it, for such a little
> difference, it seems more worthwhile to be consistent than to be DWIMy.  So,
> yes, either * always means last+1, and use 1..^*, or make * mean the last
> index, and use [*+1] to append.

...and if addressed properly, it can be DWIMmy too.  In many ways,
saying that * is just off the end of the index range is
counterintuitive; it's more reasonable to people who haven't been
trained to think in terms of Perl 5's negative indices to think of 0
as being the first element and * as being the last element.  And
again, there are fewer problems with custom indexing if you go this

>>> But there is a problem with sparse arrays, isn't there?
> Sparseness is an implementation detail.  Arrays all look the same to the
> user; sparseness just means perl is smart enough to do
> @foo[10000000000000000]=$bar without trying to suck up a zillobyte of RAM.

To the extent that that is true, @foo.elems should equal 10000000000000001.

Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang

Reply via email to