MOO-cows Mailing List Archive
Re: List operations (Was: More LPMOO stuff)
On Sat, 19 Aug 1995, 869683 Gillespie Brandon James wrote:
> 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
> <> 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..$] as is
> < specified in the "to-do" list for the LamdaMOO server.
Why not imediate make the variable RANGE possible, so you can put a range
in a variable and use it:
some = [1..($/2)];
secondsome = [($/2)..$];
And then do operAtions on both lists...
Till now there is no possibility to put a range in a variable or property.
/ 0 0 \
|/--------------BUY A TANK-----------------\|
Subject Index |