a[ 5 : 10 ] instead of copy/part skip a 5 skip a 10 ? how about extending path syntax? a/5:10 ?
a/(5 + 7 + 29 + 3) is hard to read IMHO. the "/" is very hidden now. how about something spreadsheet-oriented? could even be a whole datatype. i would like to position inside a matrix, so having a: [ [1 2 3 4] [5 6 7 8] [9 A B C] ] b: skip-matrix a 2 2 ;fictional !>> b/1/1 == 6 !>> b/2/1 == A !> b/1:2/1:2 == [ [6 7] [A B] ] Half spreadsheet :) Intersting: >> 'b/1:2/1:2 == b/1:02/1:02 a valid path. with time-values. now when i do a spreadsheed-dialect i could use rebol-syntax directly. with up to 60 columns :) -Volker Am Sonntag, 19. Oktober 2003 21:29 schrieb Maxim Olivier-Adlhoch: > before I start, > > I don't want you to know that I agree to most of what you say in theory, > I'm just trying to see if there isn't a way to extend the base syntax in a > way that code is shorter, and easier to read. Since we are in email, the > tone gets perceived by the reader, not sent by the writter... I've had bad > past experience in this kind of on-going discussions before (but not on > this list :-) > > I love philosophy so, nothing here is personal... :-) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gregg Irwin" <> > > > It may be clear to programmers that are familiar with that notation, > > [ start : end ] Seemed clear to me, the first time I read it. a month. ago > (I'm not a python expert, believe me... I generaly hate it) > > I even tought it used similar rebolish syntax... > advanced features get used by advanced users... a lot of the code I see > from the guru is hard to read for me, simply because it uses tricks I have > not stumbled on yet... The words are all similar, but when looking at > them, they seem to have no meaning. > > have you tried going through all the view code... there is much to learn, > but darn some of it is almost impossible to grasp. > > another example is the series/:index notation I mean, really that wasn't > obvious, although logical. Eventually, when a programmer gets to a point > where he needs that notation, he jumps on the list and gets the answer... > I've seen it already a few times this year... > > > people are in-between and would understand the basic range notation, > > but would have to learn any extensions to it). > > nothing is clear in rebol, until you've programmed in it a few months. > words not being variables, for example, is the basic thing in rebol which > goes unnoticed until some weird thing happens in your code... its happened > to all experienced reboler (unless they where already well versed in lisp > speak, I guess). > > > The n:m notation would conflict with time! values as well. > > My guess is that RT can make sure that if they found a path value with a > block in it, they'd simply understand it as a range instead... isn't that > what a dialect is? context specific code? > > > General clarity aside, my gut reaction to the path/block/slice > > notation isn't positive. I don't think it buys us anything in the long > > run, and it could have a pretty serious impact on things if included > > as a base syntactical change > > it isnt really a change, its more of an addition, but I guess you mean that > people creating dialects and expecting paths, would have to handle range > notations too, then you are right, that it causes some mishaps. But then > most of the code I get from this list already isn't supported in older > versions of rebol... especially view v1.2.3 > > > excerpt: func [ > > [...] > > > ] > > cool func !! > ---------------- > > don't want to look picky but > a: 1 > b: 5 > excerpt b [a to b] > > > I know someone will say do this: > > excerpt b compose [(a) to (b)] > > but then, the idea behind the discussion starts loosing most of its sense. > > The idea I find, is that sometimes, lines of code get sooo long when a > simple new notation could address them. > > cheers! > > -MAx -- To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
