On 15.11.2010 21:32, Wietse Venema wrote:
- The [n,m] and [n..m] notation is not familiar, but the "," and ".." are clear. It is unlikely to confuse people with false expectations when they are familiar with other systems (except mathematicians).- The {n,m} and {n..m} notation handicaps some BASH users with false expectations because Postfix behavior is not identical to BASH behavior. It also conflicts with pattern matching, where {n,m} is used as a quantifier. - The (n,m) and (n..m) notation is familiar to Perl users, and does not handicap them with false expectations. (though it is non-intuitive from a mathematician's point of view). I'm inclined to go for "clarity": [n,m] and [n..m]. With this choice, no-one suffers from false expectations. Anyone can understand that "n,m" means a sequence of n and m, and anyone can understand that "n..m" means a range from n to m.
Well, in this regard, both [n,m] and [n..m] are pretty familiar to Ruby users, but I guess those are smart enough to figure it out. :)
Visually, I like the [] the most of the three and {} the least. So if the {} wouldn't match the already existing syntax entirely, let's go with either [] or ().
Patrik
