Re: List operations (Was: More LPMOO stuff)

• Date: Sat, 19 Aug 1995 10:13:17 PDT
• From:
  Chuck Adams <cadams@weather.brockport.edu>
• Cc: anomaly@u.washington.edu, moo-cows@parc.xerox.com
• Content-Length: 823
• Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
• Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
• In-Reply-To: <199508152007.NAA03099@crg8.sequent.com> from "Ben Jackson" at Aug 15, 95 01:07:58 pm

Ben Jackson drew these hieroglyphs:
> 
> > Hence list[n..] would be equivalent to list[n..length(list)], except it
> > should save the extra time of evaluating length(list).
> 
> It would save you the extra time of *typing* length(list).  The length
> will still have to be evaluated.  In either case it's O(1), since list[0]
> contains the length (it's inaccessible from MOOcode).  I don't think you
> can argue that this would be a performance improvement.
> 

well, it'd shave off a few steps, not having to deal with an explicit
builtin call, but that already got covered.  just want get my opinion
out:

the syntax kind of bugs me.  i can see where it comes from, but it
does look like a typo.  my preference would be for foo[1..$] as is
specified in the "to-do" list for the LamdaMOO server.

chuck
kirlan@lambdamoo

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