14 Jun
2006
14 Jun
'06
1:22 p.m.
I would like to suggest that for-from loops be sugar for for-in
loops.
I would like to suggest the possibility to use ranges with for-in
loops, which might already be the case.
Finally, I suggest supporting Cartesian products of ranges.
Finally, I suggest that
for x from 0 to X - 1 do
for y from 0 to Y - 1 do
could be written as
for (x, y) in (0 .. X - 1, 0 .. Y - 1)
or something like that. Maybe
for x, y in 0 .. X - 1 x 0 .. Y - 1
where x is the Cartesian product? Nah. Make them tuples? I.e., use
[] again?
for x, y in [0 .. X - 1][0 .. Y - 1]
I like this, since it basically means that arrays are nothing both
variables indexed over ranges that can now be multidimensional.
14 Jun
14 Jun
1:28 p.m.
>> "Akim" == Akim Demaille
<akim(a)lrde.epita.fr> writes:
I would like to suggest that for-from loops be sugar
for for-in
loops.
I would like to suggest the possibility to use ranges
with for-in
loops, which might already be the case.
Finally, I suggest supporting Cartesian products of
ranges.
Finally, I suggest that
for x from 0 to X - 1 do
for y from 0 to Y - 1 do
could be written as
for (x, y) in (0 .. X - 1, 0 .. Y - 1)
or something like that. Maybe
for x, y in 0 .. X - 1 x 0 .. Y - 1
where x is the Cartesian product? Nah. Make them
tuples? I.e., use
[] again?
for x, y in [0 .. X - 1][0 .. Y - 1]
I like this, since it basically means that arrays are
nothing both
variables indexed over ranges that can now be multidimensional.
I would also like to be able to manipulate tuples. Say
x = event_x & y = event_y
->
(x, y) = (event_x, event_y)
likewise for updates and so forth.
1:45 p.m.
>> "Akim" == Akim Demaille
<akim(a)lrde.epita.fr> writes:
I would like to suggest that for-from loops be sugar
for for-in
loops.
I would like to suggest the possibility to use ranges
with for-in
loops, which might already be the case.
Finally, I suggest supporting Cartesian products of
ranges.
Finally, I suggest that
for x from 0 to X - 1 do
for y from 0 to Y - 1 do
could be written as
for (x, y) in (0 .. X - 1, 0 .. Y - 1)
or something like that. Maybe
for x, y in 0 .. X - 1 x 0 .. Y - 1
where x is the Cartesian product? Nah. Make them
tuples? I.e., use
[] again?
for x, y in [0 .. X - 1][0 .. Y - 1]
I like this, since it basically means that arrays are
nothing both
variables indexed over ranges that can now be multidimensional.
I would also like to be able to manipulate tuples. Say
x = event_x & y = event_y
->
(x, y) = (event_x, event_y)
likewise for updates and so forth.
Also, although I have not really thought in depth about this, but it
seems to me that there cannot be a formula, a module, and a variable
bearing the same name. Therefore, for consistency, and for a lighter
syntax, it might make more sense to use [] for the range, and () for
the accesses? Say
s[x][y] '= ...
would be
s(x, y) '= ...
21 Jun
21 Jun
10:56 a.m.
On 2006-06-14, Akim Demaille <akim(a)lrde.epita.fr> wrote:
x = event_x & y = event_y
->
(x, y) = (event_x, event_y)
likewise for updates and so forth.
Why not. But is this really necessary? IMHO it's more intelligible in the
former version than in the later with tuples.
Also, although I have not really thought in depth about this, but it
seems to me that there cannot be a formula, a module, and a variable
bearing the same name. Therefore, for consistency, and for a lighter
syntax, it might make more sense to use [] for the range, and () for
the accesses? Say
s[x][y] '= ...
would be
s(x, y) '= ...
Oh no please :)
This is utterly ugly!
--
SIGOURE Benoit aka Tsuna
_____
/EPITA\ Promo 2008.CSI Rock & tRoll
10:53 a.m.
On 2006-06-14, Akim Demaille <akim(a)lrde.epita.fr> wrote:
I would like to suggest that for-from loops be sugar for for-in
loops.
You want to desugar a for-from into a for-in to finally unroll the for-in?
Why introduce an extra step when I can immediately unroll the for-from?
I would like to suggest the possibility to use ranges with for-in
loops, which might already be the case.
Not in for-in loops. I don't know why i added these, they come from a dirty
world where almost everything is a string (that is, the shells).
The semantics in ``for i in a, b, c do ... end'' is that i will take
different values (a, b, c) in turn and that's all. It's more about carrying
things around and copying them verbatim, without further modification.
If you want to have something like:
for i in 0..10 do .. end
where the range is going to be expanded in 0, 1, 2, 3, ..., 10, you're giving
it a different semantics!
However, I agree that this kind of sugar could be nice to have. But not in a
for-in loop.
Is there really a real advantage to use ranges when you could simply write
something completely human readable: for i from 0 to 10 do ... end?
Finally, I suggest supporting Cartesian products of ranges.
That's a cool idea!
Finally, I suggest that
for x from 0 to X - 1 do
for y from 0 to Y - 1 do
could be written as
for (x, y) in (0 .. X - 1, 0 .. Y - 1)
Yeah well that's Cartesian products...
or something like that. Maybe
for x, y in 0 .. X - 1 x 0 .. Y - 1
^
Haem... I don't quite like that `x' here :0
Maybe we should require our user to have an APL keyboard and type the proper
symbol ? :-)
where x is the Cartesian product? Nah. Make them tuples? I.e., use
[] again?
for x, y in [0 .. X - 1][0 .. Y - 1]
I like this, since it basically means that arrays are nothing both
variables indexed over ranges that can now be multidimensional.
Hmz, again for-in is not what we want here. But that's a detail. I find this
quite ugly. I think that people (especially the kind of people working on
model-checking) will like the idea about Cartesian products rather than this
weird syntax.
--
SIGOURE Benoit aka Tsuna
_____
/EPITA\ Promo 2008.CSI Rock & tRoll
6542
days inactive
6549
days old
4 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Akim Demaille -
Tsuna