On 2009-Aug-19, at 8:07 am, Jon Lang wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 5:37 AM, Jan Ingvoldstad<frett...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Moritz Lenz via RT <perl6-bugs-follo...@perl.org
> wrote:
It doesn't mention how the postcifcumfix:<[ ]> is supposed to
introspect
those to find out if the WhateverCode object constructed by 1..*
needs
to receive self.elems or self.elems-1 as an argument.
The * can tell when it's in a range, and set some range-flag on the
resulting object, right? Then .[] will test for $whatever.range-
flag. Or am I missing the point?
Given that it's relatively easy to say "1..^*", I wouldn't mind
standardizing this so that '*' always refers to the element just past
the last one, at least when dealing with the standard index.
I like the DWIMmery, but the more I think about it, for such a little
difference, it seems more worthwhile to be consistent than to be
DWIMy. So, yes, either * always means last+1, and use 1..^*, or make
* mean the last index, and use [*+1] to append.
But there is a problem with sparse arrays, isn't there?
Sparseness is an implementation detail. Arrays all look the same to
the user; sparseness just means perl is smart enough to do
@foo[10000000000000000]=$bar without trying to suck up a zillobyte of
RAM.
-David
