From: "Robert Sanderson" <[log in to unmask]>
> .... we do need at
> least start:length, where both start and length are positive integers.
You mean start:end I hope.
The proposal originally had start:length but was changed to start:end. I
assume we don't want to (arbitrarily) change that back. Please let's not,
unless there is a compelling reason, and I can't find one in this thread.
Asuming that, looking at the existing proposal
and as a result of this discussion, what have we agreed to:
1. change from zero- to one-based.
2. make "end' optional (if omitted, "end" is end-of-string)
If "end" must be postive (as Rob implies above) then we also get rid of all
the wraparound stuff?