Paul Rubin wrote: > Bryan Olson writes: > >> seq[3 : -4] >> >>we write: >> >> seq[3 ; $ - 4] > > > +1
I think you're wrong about the "+1". I defined '$' to stand for the length of the sequence (not the address of the last element). >>When square-brackets appear within other square-brackets, the >>inner-most bracket-pair determines which sequence '$' describes. >>(Perhaps '$$' should be the length of the next containing >>bracket pair, and '$$$' the next-out and...?) > > Not sure. $1, $2, etc. might be better, or $<tag> like in regexps, etc. Sounds reasonable. [...] > Hmm, tuples are hashable and are already valid indices to mapping > objects like dictionaries. Having slices means an object can > implement both the mapping and sequence interfaces. Whether that's > worth caring about, I don't know. Yeah, I thought that alternative might break peoples code, and it turns out it does. -- --Bryan -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
