On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 07:10:39PM +0100, Juerd wrote:
: Ruud H.G. van Tol skribis 2005-11-23 19:03 (+0100):
: > > Doesn't ^5 encourage [EMAIL PROTECTED] too much?
: > Can you explain when that creates a problem?
:
: It's not about problems in execution, it's about expression.
:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] returns the *number of elements*, not the index of the last
: element plus one. It should not be used for index math.
:
: There are cases where we should write @foo.last + 1, even though the
: result will in almost all cases be the same as [EMAIL PROTECTED], and there
are
: cases where we should write @foo - 1, even though the result will be the
: same as that of @foo.last.
:
: That almost all arrays range from 0..i is no reason to write bad code.
:
: > Maybe someone doing
: > for ([EMAIL PROTECTED])->$i { say @foo[$i] }
:
: That should be ^(@foo.last + 1), or not using ^ at all. I'd prefer the
: latter.
I don't think that's a big problem. Formal arrays are allowed to view
all incoming array parameters as 0-based even if created elsewhere as
non-0-based arrays. Forcing everyone to use the same circumlocutions
because someone somewhere *might* use a non-0-based view of their
arrays is just falling back into one of those magical action at a
distance traps, I think. A non-0-based view is fine in a particular
lexical scope, but it shouldn't leak out.
Which means you can use [EMAIL PROTECTED] and know it's right in your lexical
scope.
Larry
