On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 6:34 PM, Leif Walsh <leif.walsh@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 29, 2008 at 6:41 PM, Andre Roberge <andre.roberge@gmail.com> wrote: [snip]
I would argue that, in these last three examples, there might be better choices. (some of these choices have been inspired by reading http://www.resolversystems.com/documentation/index.php/Differences_Between_R...)
Are you suggesting this because you work with both languages? This e-mail seems a bit self-serving, because of the inclusion of someone's in-house language spec.
Nope, never used it. I try, whenever I can, to always give credit to the relevant source when I mention something that may appear to be an original idea - hence the above reference. [snip]
That said, I'm not sure 'arrows' are even the right approach for slices. Slices should be thought of as ranges, which usually lend themselves to ellipses. I remember (loosely, from a long time ago) Ruby having '..' and '...' as exclusive and inclusive ranges, and I really liked that.
[snip]
I have seen other alternatives for simple slices suggested in the past such as [a..b] and [a...b] which would be the equivalent of [a->b] and [a=>b]; however, the extra "." might sometimes be difficult to read, whereas the difference between "->" and "=>" is much easier to see.
You're right. This is one of the reasons I hate Ruby. Yet another reason to ignore your suggestion for slices :-).
Hmm... this is one of the reason you really like it (see above) and hate it too! ;-) Sorry, I couldn't resist ;-) Cheers, André
-- Cheers, Leif