Larry~ On 11/23/05, Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 11:55:35AM -0500, Matt Fowles wrote: > : I think using C< ..5 > to mean (0, 1, 2, 3, 4) would be a more > : sensible option. Makes sense to me at least. > > That doesn't derive well from any of: > > .. > ^.. > ..^ > ^..^ > > If the rule is "you can omit the 0", then it's ..^5 rather than ..5.
I like C< ..^5 > better than C< ^5 > actually. I was going for the rule that an omitted LHS was 0 and an omitted RHS was infinity (your probably cannot omit both). Regardless, my gut tells me that C< ^5 > is just a little too short for what it does. Also, I find the argument that people will type [EMAIL PROTECTED] and get confused fairly convincing. Matt -- "Computer Science is merely the post-Turing Decline of Formal Systems Theory." -Stan Kelly-Bootle, The Devil's DP Dictionary
