Re: [nimh-dev] More stuff

[Tom Plagge <tplagge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I think it will be easier if it's like this:
> 
> 1. ['cur', 8, '9-11', 'foo']
> 2. [4, 8, '9-11', 7, '10-12'] # list remains flat
> 3. [8, '9-11', 7, '10-12'] --> [(4, 5)]
> 4. ['9-11', 7, '10-12'] --> [(4, 5), (8, 9)]
> 5. [7, '10-12'] --> [(4, 5), (8, 12)]
> 6. ['10-12'] --> [(4, 5), (7, 12)]
> 7. [] --> [(4, 5), (7, 13)]
> 
> Numeric tokens are popped off the first list and a second list of ranges 
> is created.
> 
> But my brain has been warped by too many years of C++'s static 
> type-checking, so my preference may be due to my inability to think about 
> collections of different types.
 
Either method would be easy to parse and interpret.  I don't have strong 
feelings either way.  This is kind of slick, I must admit.
 
> No, it should store [1, 500] (or [1, 501]). Checking for existence later 
> on will keep the code cleaner.

Upon further consideration, yes, I agree.

________________________________________________________________________

Tom Plagge                              UC Berkeley Physics Dept.
351 LeConte Hall                        Voice: (510) 643-1650
Berkeley, CA  94720                     Email: tplagge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________
nimh-dev mailing list
nimh-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/nimh-dev