Juerd wrote:
> Michael Homer skribis 2004-09-08 15:54 (+1200):
> > I think (correct me) what he's getting at here is a sparse array 1=>a,
>
> > 3=>b, 4=>c where 2nd is 'b' (the second item) but 1st+1 is undefined
> > (there is no index 2). I don't know how well that scheme works from a
> > compr
Michael Homer skribis 2004-09-08 15:54 (+1200):
> I think (correct me) what he's getting at here is a sparse array 1=>a,
> 3=>b, 4=>c where 2nd is 'b' (the second item) but 1st+1 is undefined
> (there is no index 2). I don't know how well that scheme works from a
> comprehension point of view th
Juerd wrote:
Jonathan Lang skribis 2004-09-07 14:12 (-0700):
if we want to look at the next existing element, we can say (1 +
1).th; if we want to look at the element whose index is one higher
than the first index, we can say 1.st + 1.
I read this three times, but don't get it. Can you plea
Jonathan Lang skribis 2004-09-07 14:12 (-0700):
> Again, with a bit of magic where the dot is optional when the object in
> question is an integer literal: 4th =:= 4.th - and probably with special
> synonyms for th when the literal is any of (1 or -1, 2 or -2, 3 or -3) -
> Number::st, Number::nd, a
Juerd wrote:
> John Williams wrote:
> > > 4 :th
> > > $foo :th
> > No. Adverbs modify verbs (operators or functions), not terms like 4 or
> > $foo.
>
> Then perhaps a method? Number::th?
>
> 4.th
> $foo.th
Again, with a bit of magic where the dot is optional when the object in
qu
John Williams skribis 2004-09-07 12:49 (-0600):
> > 4 :th
> > $foo :th
> No. Adverbs modify verbs (operators or functions), not terms like 4 or
> $foo.
Then perhaps a method? Number::th?
4.th
$foo.th
I really dislike the apostrophe.
Juerd
On Tue, 7 Sep 2004, Juerd wrote:
> John Williams skribis 2004-09-07 11:37 (-0600):
> > > and postfix:'th? It's 80s and postfix:th!
> > Probably to help separate the term from the postfix operator.
> >@array[ $foo'th ];
>
> Maybe what I'm saying now is a really bad idea, because it doesn't make
