1. Re: A better way then just "$" -- !
I'll post this again since it's now over 24 hours and not appeared:
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 05:56:43 +0000, Al Getz <Xaxo at aol.com> wrote:
>If there is a number 'before' AND 'after' the $, then
>
>s=3D{1,2,3,4,5,6,7}
>
>s=3Ds[2$6] -- {1,2,6,7} --note the '6' names the element itself here.
Hmm. consider the common expression:
s=3Ds[1..idx-1]&s[idx+1..length(s)]
To represent that in the above notation, you'd need eg:
s[(idx-1)$(idx+1)]
Doesn't really fly, does it?
However, I did get to think what would be the easiest way to express
this common idiom and came up with:
x[not idx]
or
x[not 3..5]
which is a lot neater than
x[1..idx-1]&s[idx+1..length(x)]
or even
x[1..2]&[6..$]
Regards,
Pete
