Richard Proctor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Conflict with "last LOOP"? Hm, the context should be enough to
>> distinguish them, no? (Hey, maybe they can be unified somehow --
>> "last -1" to skip to the penultimate pass through the loop? =P)
>
> That could be generalised, "next +1" skipping
Smylers wrote:
> (But personally I'm quite happy with zero-based arrays, so as long as
> -1 continues to work for those I'm not too bothered what happens with
> other cases.)
This is an interesting point: can the perl optimizer be made to treat
0-based contiguous lists in the same way that perl 5
John Williams writes:
> On Sun, 5 Sep 2004, Matt Diephouse wrote:
>
> > Don't say -1st is the "first from last". If last is the opposite of
> > first, I would expect 1st to mean "first from first," which would
> > mean the second. Say "first from the end".
>
> It matches up with perl5 C<$array[-
On Sun, 5 Sep 2004, Matt Diephouse wrote:
> Am I the only one that thinks that -1st should return the last element
> in an array under the nth scheme? 1st should mean the first element.
> -1st should mean the first element of the reversed array.
>
> Don't say -1st is the "first from last". If last
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004 22:17:22 -0700 (PDT), Jonathan Lang
> Agreed; that's why I'd include "last" for newbies to use. "0th" as "last"
> works only as an extension of "-1st" as "first from last", "-2nd" as
> "second from last", and so on; you have positive numbers counting from the
> first, and negat
On Sun 05 Sep, David Green wrote:
> On 2004/9/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Lang) wrote:
> (Nice Subject change, I almost missed it!)
>
> >Larry Wall wrote:
> > > Yow. Presumably "nth" without an argument would mean the last.
> >
> >If it means the last, why not just use C?
>
> Conflict with
John Williams writes:
> BTW, there should be no ambiguity between C and C<''>,
> because one occurs where an operator is expected, and one occurs where
> a term is expected.
There may be no ambiguity for the Perl engine, but any use of C<'> for
anything other than quoting makes life hard for synt
John Williams wrote:
> Jonathan Lang wrote:
> > The only place where it makes
> > sense to wrap is when you define 0th as the final element, making it
> > logical that 0th+1 == 1st and 1st-1 == 0th.
>
> I don't think 0th is a good name for the final element. I've never seen
> it used for that. I
On Sat, 4 Sep 2004, Jonathan Lang wrote:
> The only place where it makes
> sense to wrap is when you define 0th as the final element, making it
> logical that 0th+1 == 1st and 1st-1 == 0th.
I don't think 0th is a good name for the final element. I've never seen
it used for that. I've only seen i
David Green wrote:
> Jonathan Lang wrote:
> > If C<@foo[last+1]=$bar> is equivalent to C, 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 one b
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan Lang) wrote:
>No problem here, especially if C<0th> and C are synonyms - that is,
>make "..., -4th, -3rd, -2nd, -1st, 0th, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, ..." be the
>underlying mechanism, and define C and C as synonyms for
>C<0th> and C<1st>.
Ye
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 C<0th> and C are synonyms - that is,
make "..., -4th, -3rd, -2nd, -1st, 0th, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, ..." be the
underlying mechanism
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 C?
Conflict with "last LOOP"? Hm, the context should be enough to
d
13 matches
Mail list logo
