>Warren Postma wrote:
>> >How much further do you want?  I'm serious - please explain, and you may
>> >find (as here) that what you want already exists.
>> 
>> Well, what about these array operations:
>> 
>> a[5] := 10					" obvious array syntax "
>> a[5][9] := 0			      " multiple levels of arrays "
>> a[0:10] := 0  				" initialize a slice "
>> a[5:10] := b[10:15]			" slice "
>> a["key"] := Value 			" dictionary "
>
>Well, I am guessing you know that you could write these things in
Smalltalk as
>(by adding a Slice class, of course):
>
>     a at: 5 put: 10
>     (a at: 9) at: 5 put: 9
>     (a slice: 1 to: 11) put: 0      "Smalltalk indexes start at 1"
>     (a slice: 5 to: 10) put: (b slice: 10 to: 15)
>      a at: 'key' put: value

Comparing these two sets of expression, I've to admit that I like the above
more.  Jecel is right, that this syntax is not too difficult to add, even
if it uses the same square brackets as blocks.

A year ago or so, I posted the needed changes to the Parser to allow a[x]
:= y and friends.  I didn't add support for slices, but I could imagine
another patch which would allow ":" (or ".." which I'd probably prefer) as
a valid binary operator and then you could also express a[1 : 10] := 42.


bye
--
Stefan Matthias Aust  //  Bevor wir fallen, fallen wir lieber auf.