[Noam Raphael]
> Many times I find myself asking for a slice of a specific length, rather
> than a slice with a specific end. I suggest to add the syntax
> object[start:>length] (or object[start:>length:jump]), beside the
> existing syntax.
It would be convenient at times, and I've got nothing against that. It
isn't *necessary*, and if it were to be added the syntax should change.
Python's sequence slicing is so similar to that in the earlier Icon language
that for years I thought Guido borrowed it from Icon (but years later he
told me that's not so). Icon has 1-based indexing (Python's is 0-based),
but apart from that they're the same.
In Icon, the notations are, e.g.,
S[5:8] # S[5], S[6], and S[7]
and
S[5+:3] # also S[5], S[6], and S[7]
"+:" suggests addition in a way ":>" does not, so I think it's a better
notation. Putting the '+' before the colon is also reminiscent of, e.g.
i += j
conceptually expanding to
i = i+j
Then
i +: j
conceptually expanding to
i : i+j
is the same syntactic pattern. I should note that Icon had the good sense
to stop there too <wink>.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4