OpenEuphoria

Re: Why equal(x[n], x[n..n])=0 ?

• Posted by CChris <christian.cuvier at agricult?re.gouv.f?> Sep 25, 2007
• 719 views

Jason Gade wrote:
> 
> Maybe you could post an algorithm/code sample where you think returning an
> atom
> would make more sense?
> 
> s[constant...constant] is never used; slices are usually used in a loop or
> with
> one or two variables. The expression following almost invariably expects a
> sequence--returning
> either a sequence or an atom would require extra checking.
> 
> --
> A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple
> system that works.
> --John Gall's 15th law of Systemantics.
> 
> "Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming."
> --C.A.R. Hoare
> 
> j.

I have some code that normalises a sequence of numbers and pairs of numbers to
make the whole stuff non overlapping and increasing. I remember having run in
this sort of trouble, where I have a lower and upper limit, and the idea is:
return element of sequence if lower=upper, and keep working on a smaller slice
else. And I got hit precisely by the fact that s[lower..upper] has a bucket
around it. I can dig the code up when I'm back home tonight (ie 10-12h from now).

While it is indeed annoying at times, I think it is better that slices always be
sequence, because not doing so would make quite more code more complex. But I do
agree that this is sometimes a nuisance.

CChris