Re: List operations (Was: More LPMOO stuff)

• Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 13:15:07 PDT
• From:
  sir@po.cwru.edu (Seth I. Rich)
• Reply-to:
  sir@po.cwru.edu (Seth I. Rich)

> One thing I would like to see, in regular MOO (and so it's a suggestion for
> LPMOO as well) are the range constructions:
> 
>                 [..n] and [n..]
> 
> Hence list[n..] would be equivalent to list[n..length(list)], except it
> should save the extra time of evaluating length(list).

Apparently nobody bothered looking at the upcoming features list.  This
is already on the slate for inclusion, with '$' being used to refer to
the length of the referenced list.

Why would you want syntax which -looks- like a typo?

Seth / Blackbriar

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seth I. Rich
Woo, woo!  OpalMOO's back!       There is nothing more precious than
Rabbits on walls, no problem.    a tear of true repentance.

• Re: List operations (Was: More LPMOO stuff)
• From: Christopher Scott Delaney <delaneyc@wabash.edu>

• Prev: Re: List operations (Was: More LPMOO stuff)
• Next: Re: List operations (Was: More LPMOO stuff)
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows