John Williams writes:
BTW, there should be no ambiguity between Cpostfix:'th and C'',
because one occurs where an operator is expected, and one occurs where
a term is expected.
There may be no ambiguity for the Perl engine, but any use of C' for
anything other than quoting makes life hard for
On Sun 05 Sep, David Green wrote:
On 2004/9/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Lang) wrote:
(Nice Subject change, I almost missed it!)
Larry Wall wrote:
Yow. Presumably nth without an argument would mean the last.
If it means the last, why not just use Clast?
Conflict with last LOOP?
Larry Wall wrote:
David Green wrote:
: I actually found things I liked in pretty much all the suggested
: alternatives, but none of them reached out and grabbed me by the
: throat the way nth did. It just seems more Perlish.
Yow. Presumably nth without an argument would mean the last.
On 2004/9/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Lang) wrote:
(Nice Subject change, I almost missed it!)
Larry Wall wrote:
Yow. Presumably nth without an argument would mean the last.
If it means the last, why not just use Clast?
Conflict with last LOOP? Hm, the context should be enough to
David Green wrote:
Anyway, if we can have last, we should also have first (just for
people who don't mind all the extra typing).
No problem here, especially if C0th and Clast are synonyms - that is,
make ..., -4th, -3rd, -2nd, -1st, 0th, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, ... be the
underlying mechanism, and
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Lang) wrote:
No problem here, especially if C0th and Clast are synonyms - that is,
make ..., -4th, -3rd, -2nd, -1st, 0th, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, ... be the
underlying mechanism, and define Clast and Cfirst as synonyms for
C0th and C1st.
David Green wrote:
Jonathan Lang wrote:
If C@foo[last+1]=$bar is equivalent to Cpush @foo, $bar, what
happens if you say C@foo[last+2]=$bar? While I like the notion that
subtracting from first or adding to last takes you beyond the bounds
of the list, you generally can't go more than
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004, Jonathan Lang wrote:
The only place where it makes
sense to wrap is when you define 0th as the final element, making it
logical that 0th+1 == 1st and 1st-1 == 0th.
I don't think 0th is a good name for the final element. I've never seen
it used for that. I've only seen it
