| Type | Wish | Status | reviewed | Date | 10-May-2014 22:54 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Version | r3 master | Category | Native | Submitted by | Graham |
| Platform | All | Severity | minor | Priority | normal |
| Summary | Add a /last refinement to REMOVE to remove the last element in a series |
|---|---|
| Description |
at present we have the following ways to remove last The common idiom is: head remove back tail series We also have take/last series series We should have remove/last series to be equivalent to the idiom |
| Example code |
| Assigned to | n/a | Fixed in | - | Last Update | 22-Jun-2014 00:39 |
|---|
| Comments | |
|---|---|
|
(0004424)
Gregg 12-May-2014 19:36 |
For orthogonality, yes. Seems I've always stuck with my old mezz's that I had before TAKE/LAST. :\
Not crucial, but useful in that it's easy to find. |
|
(0004443)
fork 16-Jun-2014 08:09 |
It has come up on StackOverflow and @draegtun has asked for it:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/18231434 ...and posted a Gist about it: https://gist.github.com/draegtun/6243869 Seems like a good idea to me to add it to the action! in the C code. |
|
(0004453)
BrianH 22-Jun-2014 00:39 |
Agreed, except it the return value shouldn't be the head of the series (for REMOVE of a series), it should be the series at the position passed to REMOVE. This would be consistent with the existing behavior of REMOVE and allow better chaining. Otherwise that position is lost.
Be sure to add the /last option at the end, so we don't break any port schemes - remember that REMOVE isn't mezzanine, it's an action, and ports accept that action. This might break port schemes that don't have /last defined if we don't pass it along properly, at least when REMOVE/last is used on them. What this means conceptually for ports, or even whether this applies, would depend on the scheme. Remember to make it work with /part as well, both the position and the number arguments. With the bitset! type this may be equivalent to removing the last bit. The combination of /part and /last on a bitset! type is problematic, so we should ignore one or the other unless we can think of a logical way to combine them. Needs debate. |
| Date | User | Field | Action | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22-Jun-2014 00:48 | BrianH | Comment : 0004453 | Modified | - |
| 22-Jun-2014 00:39 | BrianH | Comment : 0004453 | Added | - |
| 22-Jun-2014 00:29 | BrianH | Summary | Modified | Add a last refinement to remove to remove the last element in a series => Add a /last refinement to REMOVE to remove the last element in a series |
| 22-Jun-2014 00:29 | BrianH | Description | Modified | - |
| 22-Jun-2014 00:29 | BrianH | Category | Modified | Mezzanine => Native |
| 22-Jun-2014 00:29 | BrianH | Status | Modified | submitted => reviewed |
| 16-Jun-2014 08:09 | fork | Comment : 0004443 | Added | - |
| 12-May-2014 19:36 | Gregg | Comment : 0004424 | Added | - |
| 10-May-2014 22:54 | Graham | Ticket | Added | - |