Xavier Noria wrote:
>
> I would expect the range operator to work on both directions.
>
> I have no objective reasons to support that, but it feels just natural
> to me to be able to say 9..0 given that we are able to say 0..9. Maybe
> it's kind of completeness, or symmetry, I am not sure, but I prefer it.
>
> Which are the arguments against it?
Umm, I included this in my original message:
> for my $i (0..$#array) {
> # do something
> }
For example:
sub printall {
my @array = @_;
for my $i (0..$#array) {
print "Element #$i is $array[$i]\n";
}
}
ie, cases where you loop through an array but need the index in
addition to the value.
printall ("a", "b", "c");
works fine:
Element #0 is a
Element #1 is b
Element #2 is c
but consider that:
printall ();
would yield:
Element #0 is --> uh oh... reference to an undef on
Element #-1 is both of these lines
If '..' always counted both ways, you'd need to check the size of
@array before the for loop, which seems like a step backwards.
--
Ron Isaacson
Morgan Stanley
ron.isaacson-/PgpppG8B+R7qynMiXIxWgC/G2K4zDHf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx / (718) 754-2345
NOTICE: If received in error, please destroy and notify sender. Sender
does not waive confidentiality or privilege, and use is prohibited.
|
