> -----Original Message----- > From: Carl Read [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 2:02 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [REBOL] Re: Cunning use of [], () & {} in R# and in future? > Rebol versions? > > > > On 17-Oct-03, Andrew Martin wrote: > > > Earlier I wrote: > >>> X[2] > >> == "b" > > > It looks like I'm solving problems which not yet exist. > > But it got me thinking anyway, so would this be useful... > > >> blk: ["a" "b" "c" "d" "e"] > == ["a" "b" "c" "d" "e"] > >> blk/[1 4 5] > == ["a" "d" "e"] >
now you're talking it even looks rebolish... add python's list notation which is nice (I must admit, and is missing altogether in rebol). examples (with equivalent rebol line after): series[5:10] -> return a series starting at 5 ending at 10 copy/part at series 5 at series 10 series[5] -> return element 5 series/5 (I'd rather keep series/5 and add /[5] which returns a block with only the fifth element in it series[:10] -> return everything up to element 10 copy/part series at series 10 series[5:] -> return everything starting a element 5 at series 5 you can even use negative indexes to reverse the direction... so: series[-5:-10] reverse at series (length? series - 10) at series (length? series - 5) the advantage of the python notation is that it is much more unified. It is also often much shorter and more visual I'm not saying scrap the current system (we needs its versatility and oppeness), just adding some equivalent to the python method in the way Carl just wrote it. We'd all benefit from shorter, often, more redeable scripts. I know we can write a function for it... but that adds a word in the source which really isn't needed if its supported in the base syntax. Only RT can do that. the way carl just describes it, added with added range notation does not break any current rebol syntax I can remember, yet it makes our lives much simpler. What do you all think? -MAx -- To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
