OpenEuphoria

Re: Possible feature for new Euphoria-version

• Posted by Robert Craig <rds at RapidEuphoria.com> Jan 09, 2004
• 408 views

Tommy Carlier wrote:
> sequence seq
> seq = {{1, 2, 3}, {4, 5, 6}, {7, 8, 9}}
> sequence b
> b = {2, 2}
> integer a
> a = seq[b]
> 
> This way you can also pass and return multiple indices to and from 
> procedures and functions.

There are at least three logical ways that you might define
subscripting of a sequence with a sequence.

1. Your way (above). The sequence used as a subscript would
    contain a series of subscripts to be applied. This
    fills a logical gap in subscripting, since currently
    the number of levels of subscripting is fixed at
    compile-time. You could use this for reading and writing.

2. sequence s
    s = {100, 200, 300, 400, 500}
    s[{1,5,3}] is {100, 500, 300}
    The subscript would let you randomly select a bunch of
    elements for reading or writing.

3. sequence s
    s[1] = 7
    s["Tommy"] = 99
    s["Carlier"] = 0
    s["Carlier"] += 1
    ? s["Tommy"] * s["Carlier"]

    The Euphoria implementer might set up a hash table internally.
    Whenever you assigned to a previously nonexistent
    element, the implementation would create a new
    element for you. This would be good for symbol tables,
    databases etc.

Which approach is best? If you choose one, you'll
eliminate the possibility of doing the others.

Regards,
    Rob Craig
    Rapid Deployment Software
    http://www.RapidEuphoria.com