Walter wrote:

> "Charles Hixson" <charleshixsn@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3C0C0732.6030108@earthlink.net...
> > Perhaps, as was suggested earlier, there should be an
> > array.maxIndex value?  Length is reasonable for the number of
> > elements, but doesn't really match the maximum index.  And a
> > fully closed interval is easier to grasp.  So one would write:
> > a [0 .. a.maxIndex]
> > (which would be equal to a.length - 1, as long as we agree to
> > use zero based indexing [and if someday it is generalized to
> > n-based indexing, only a minIndex value would need to be added]).
>
> What would maxIndex be for a 0 length array?

NAN, of course!

-BobC

"Robert W. Cunningham" <rwc_2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3C0D86B9.28E3F0C2@yahoo.com...

> > What would maxIndex be for a 0 length array?
>
> NAN, of course!

Actually, index is an integer...

I wish there was a NAN for integer types. -Walter

"Robert W. Cunningham" <rwc_2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3C0D86B9.28E3F0C2@yahoo.com...
> Walter wrote:
>
> > "Charles Hixson" <charleshixsn@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:3C0C0732.6030108@earthlink.net...
> > > Perhaps, as was suggested earlier, there should be an
> > > array.maxIndex value?  Length is reasonable for the number of
> > > elements, but doesn't really match the maximum index.  And a
> > > fully closed interval is easier to grasp.  So one would write:
> > > a [0 .. a.maxIndex]
> > > (which would be equal to a.length - 1, as long as we agree to
> > > use zero based indexing [and if someday it is generalized to
> > > n-based indexing, only a minIndex value would need to be added]).
> >
> > What would maxIndex be for a 0 length array?
>
> NAN, of course!
>
> -BobC
>
>

Walter wrote:

> I wish there was a NAN for integer types. -Walter


Replace the minimum signed integer with NAN. Minimum signed integer
is just a pain in the ass anyway. Don't know what to do about
unsigned integers, mind -- co-opting 0x80000000u would probably
cause some problems.

Joke! Joke!

-R

Pavel Minayev a écrit :

> "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:9uhjh8$1fhs$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> >
> > <la7y6nvo@shamko.com> wrote in message news:s7citbotd5u.fsf@michael.shamko.com...
> > >     INTEGER [ 1 .. 10 ]
> > >     INTEGER [ 1 .. 11 )
> > >     INTEGER ( 0 .. 10 ]
> > >     INTEGER ( 0 .. 11 )
> > >
> > > I'm sure you can see what's going on - the ()'s are used for "open" endpoints, the []'s are used for "closed" endpoints.  The resulting syntax was, I thought, pretty intuitive (perhaps because of background in mathematics).
> > >
> > > Maybe a syntax something along these lines could be adopted in D.
> >
> > While that can be done, I'm a little uncomfortable with:
> > 1. the non-matching ( and ] <g>.
> > 2. ] and ) look pretty similar on the screen.
>
> Still... I really like the idea. The syntax is quite intuitive to everybody who knows math a little bit. And you can choose what you want to include and what you don't. IMHO the best syntax proposal on the topic so far. I vote for!

why not just

int a[0..a.lenght[;        //note there is two '['

i already proposed something similar that does not thow entousiasm, but it
would be just fine
for me.

Roland

"Roland" <rv@ronetech.com> wrote in message news:3C0E6BF2.AD8B160D@ronetech.com...

> int a[0..a.lenght[;        //note there is two '['

A problem here - this won't be parsed correctly this way:

    a[0..b[1]];

Since we have [..[ defining a range, it'll interpret
it as a[0..b[

Pavel Minayev wrote:

> "Robert W. Cunningham" <rwc_2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3C0D86B9.28E3F0C2@yahoo.com...
>
> > > What would maxIndex be for a 0 length array?
> >
> > NAN, of course!
>
> Actually, index is an integer...

Well, OK:  How about -0 instead?  ;^)

-BobC

"Robert W. Cunningham" <rwc_2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3C0ED470.F388531F@yahoo.com...

> > Actually, index is an integer...
>
> Well, OK:  How about -0 instead?  ;^)

Actually, it's an unsigned integer... muhahahaha
Now what? =)

Ok, why don't we all give up and work together?  Maybe there can just be 3 equivalent array slice syntaxes:

start/length:  a[3@2]   or   a[3 at 2]   or ....
end exclusive: a(2 .. 5)
end inclusive: a[2 .. 4]

We can all argue over who gets the coveted [x..y] syntax...but can we all agree that all 3 idioms have their place in the language?

--
The Villagers are Online! http://villagersonline.com

.[ (the fox.(quick,brown)) jumped.over(the dog.lazy) ]
.[ (a version.of(English).(precise.more)) is(possible) ]
?[ you want.to(help(develop(it))) ]

"Russ Lewis" <spamhole-2001-07-16@deming-os.org> wrote in message news:3C0F0B47.88B4A2C2@deming-os.org...

> Ok, why don't we all give up and work together?  Maybe there can just be 3 equivalent array slice syntaxes:
>
> start/length:  a[3@2]   or   a[3 at 2]   or ....
> end exclusive: a(2 .. 5)
> end inclusive: a[2 .. 4]
>
> We can all argue over who gets the coveted [x..y] syntax...but can we all
agree
> that all 3 idioms have their place in the language?

I agree.

Hey, don't forget about cases when one end is inclusive
and other isn't:

    a(2..5];    a[2..5);

Personally, I believe that this plus the @ syntax covers the widest possible range and is able to satisfy most programmers. It'd be great to see these things in D.