On 7/3/11 8:40 PM, eles wrote:
-logic (not just code-writing or compile-writing easiness) consistency -the fact that multi-dimensional slicing (possibly, a future feature) is far more convenient when x..y is inclusive (just imagine remembering which those elements are left out on those many- dimensions of the data) -the fact that Ruby has implemented the inclusive syntax too (so there was some need to do that although the right-exclusive syntax was already available) -disjoint array slices would have disjoint index ranges (imagine cases where consecutive slices overlap a bit, like in moving average applications)
As discussed before, many people here, myself included, think that these arguments are purely subjective, and you don't make them any better by stating them over and over again.
Like I suggested in the previous thread, would you maybe consider just going ahead and writing some D code? While I imagine that you probably won't join the »open-right camp«, you might discover that the slicing syntax is not as big an issue as you are trying to make it appear.
Also, this is not a question of »now, flames are on (again)« – whether to use open-right or closed slicing is a design decision where the arguments for both alternative are roughly equivalent. D has gone with the former, and I don't quite see why you just can't accept this as a fact.
Besides, as Walter pointed out, there is no way the semantics of slicing could be changed at this point. The only thing that could be considered would be using something like a[0...1] for closed indexing.
David
