Hi, > > Surely an array?s indices prescribe an order and that?s > > what first and last means > > That is a very reasonable position, but it was certainly > not obvious to me, nor (I suspect) to Dave. I had assumed > that first and last were intended to reflect traversal order. I had also assumed that. In the past, there were long discussions about this section (Mantis 978, etc.), and I don't remember anyone assserting that "first" meant smallest index. Such an assertion would also have to exclude associative arrays and there is no such statement. I also agree with Jonathan that "leftmost" is at least as logical as "smallest" (and more, in my opinion). Defining "first" and "last" would then enable removing the statement that traversal order is not defined, as simply being not relevant, or at least to restrict it to associative arrays. Regards, Shalom --------------------------------------------------------------------- Intel Israel (74) Limited This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.Received on Sun Jun 14 01:48:37 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Jun 14 2009 - 01:49:33 PDT