Mac Reiter a écrit :

>                 b = a[0 .. a.length);

sorry but in french keyboard, ']' and ')' are the same keyboard key, just the first is AltGr'ed..dangerous isn't it ?

Me, i still think that even if inclusive-exclusive form is more usable than it
seems, it is hard to sell.
I like the mathematical [a..b[ form, but i understand the parser don't.
For new comers this topic had been discussed in "arrays slicing range" thread.

Roland

"Roland" <rv@ronetech.com> wrote in message news:3C45A4FC.128C2C8F@ronetech.com...

> I like the mathematical [a..b[ form, but i understand the parser don't.

I always thought (a..b] and [a..b) are mathematical forms, aren't they?

Pavel Minayev a écrit :

> "Roland" <rv@ronetech.com> wrote in message news:3C45A4FC.128C2C8F@ronetech.com...
>
> > I like the mathematical [a..b[ form, but i understand the parser don't.
>
> I always thought (a..b] and [a..b) are mathematical forms, aren't they?

Not as i was teached math.
In fact i would'nt care notation style if ')' and ']' were not so close in my
keyboard (same key).

Roland

Mac Reiter wrote:

[snip]

> I would also agree that some form of exclusive bound would be acceptable, though hard to parse:
> 
> b = a[0 .. a.length-1];
> replaced by:
> b = a[0 .. a.length);

that is rather unpleasant (and likely to produce typos), however that
is commonly what programmers what, whould may solution be
better ...

b = a[0 .. a.last]

where a.last == a.length-1

> If the currently described exclusive ending bound remains in D, I would simply have to remove the slicing syntax from my set of tools, because I would always get it wrong -- I've switched from Basic to C/C++ enough times to know that much.

I can imagine that could give errors,  and D (IMHO) would be better
without such gotchas.

> Mac Reiter
> 

"DrWhat?" <DrWhat@nospam.madscientist.co.uk> wrote in message news:a4hnfh$109f$1@digitaldaemon.com...

> that is rather unpleasant (and likely to produce typos), however that
> is commonly what programmers what, whould may solution be
> better ...
>
> b = a[0 .. a.last]
>
> where a.last == a.length-1

Practice shows that the form [0 .. a.length] (end-exclusive) is more
practically convenient than end-inclusive one. Otherwise, this is
a matter of taste.

> I can imagine that could give errors,  and D (IMHO) would be better
> without such gotchas.

Too late too late =)