More breaking changes -- sorry, sorry. I have two suggestions, both of which I've run into in practical use:
- Changing precedence of
$$x(2). This was suggested in the mailing list many moons ago (http://wryun.github.io/es-shell/mail-archive/msg00617.html) and had vague support, but never got implemented.
This is the thing where, currently, $$x(2) is the same as $($x(2)), rather than the (not-actually-valid-syntax) $($x)(2). It would be nice if it were the latter, since the former is really easy to make happen.
- Changing "reverse" ranges to reverse the elements of the list returned.
This is an XS-ism, but one I find useful. One can easily get at the last element(s) of a list by reversing it with $x($#x ... 1) and then getting the first element(s) of the reversed list. I also think it's arguably more intuitive than the current behavior (that is, if lo > hi, then provide no results), because this correspondence is very natural:
$x(1 ... 3) <=> $x(1 2 3)
$x(2 ... 3) <=> $x(2 3)
$x(3 ... 3) <=> $x(3)
$x(4 ... 3) <=> $x(4 3)
$x(5 ... 3) <=> $x(5 4 3)
More breaking changes -- sorry, sorry. I have two suggestions, both of which I've run into in practical use:
$$x(2). This was suggested in the mailing list many moons ago (http://wryun.github.io/es-shell/mail-archive/msg00617.html) and had vague support, but never got implemented.This is the thing where, currently,
$$x(2)is the same as$($x(2)), rather than the (not-actually-valid-syntax)$($x)(2). It would be nice if it were the latter, since the former is really easy to make happen.This is an XS-ism, but one I find useful. One can easily get at the last element(s) of a list by reversing it with
$x($#x ... 1)and then getting the first element(s) of the reversed list. I also think it's arguably more intuitive than the current behavior (that is, iflo > hi, then provide no results), because this correspondence is very natural: