David Green wrote:
> It is kind of comfortable. Which is why I think I'd like to keep the
> redundant nth (if we have "first" and "last"), aka 'th (where nth($i)
> and $i'th are just pre- and postfixed versions of each other).
Especially important since there's a potential ambiguity problem between
the C<$n'th> notation and the C<''> notation, whereas no such ambiguity
exists for C<nth($n)>.
> When you're referring to an element in the middle of a list,
> $four'th
> just feels cleaner than "first+$four" or something.
or something (namely, "last+$four", or "0th+$four"). :) In this case,
C<0th> would probably be clearer than C<last>.
And whenever the ambiguity isn't an issue, I'd prefer $four'th to
nth($four) as well.
=====
Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
