From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2004-06-11T21:08:40+09:00
Subject: Re: Array#rest


"David A. Black" <dblack@wobblini.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0406110437280.1536-100000@wobblini...
> Hi --
>
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2004, Robert Klemme wrote:
>
> >
> > "Charles Comstock" <cc1@cec.wustl.edu> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> >
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0406110124410.15301-100000@earwig.int.cec.wustl.edu...
> > > I find myself frequently using array slice of 1..-1, to pass the rest
of
> > an
> > > array onto something.  While this is a reasonably concise syntax it is
not
> > the
> > > most readable.  I was curious if there had ever been interest in a
rest
> > operator
> > > on an array?
> > >
> > > For example
> > >
> > > a = [1,2,3,4]
> > > a[1..-1] # -> [2,3,4]
> > > a.rest   # -> [2,3,4]
> > >
> > > I realize this might cause a few people to write programs in a more
list
> > > processing stance, for which the current arrays are probably not best
> > suited.
> > > However, the majority of the times I use this operator is for say
reading
> > in a
> > > command as a the first arg, and passing the rest of the elements as
the
> > > parameters, and thus it would not be a performance issue.  Rest should
> > also have
> > > the same copy symantics as the 1..-1 slice.
> > >
> > > Any particular objections to this?  Should I make this an RCR?
> >
> > If you want to do something about this I'd prefer a symmetric solution
like
> > Array#head and Array#tail or Array#car and Array#cdr.
>
> I agree, though my first choice would be just to keep it as is.  I'm
> not entirely sure why... it could just be jitters about creeping
> method multiplication, though I do try not to confuse RCRs in my mind
> with RCs :-)
>
> > Btw: is "rest" in English the same as in German?  I always thought
"rest"
> > rather means "pause" than "reminder"...
>
> s/reminder/remainder/ :-)

Darn!  Yes, of course I meant "remainder".

> It has several meanings (it can be
> equivalent to "Ruhe"), including "remainder": "While he stayed, the
> rest of us went home."

Ah, yes.  Forgot that one.  It sounded odd at first sight but this example
feels perfectly ok.

>  But when you want to emphasize that everything
> except what remains has been destroyed, you would say, e.g., "the
> remains of the building".  (As opposed to: "They painted the second
> floor but not the rest of the building.")

Thanks for the lengthy explanation (or was it "expiration"? :-))))

Regards

    robert