From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from relay2.UU.NET ([192.48.96.7]) by hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu with SMTP id <2060>; Wed, 15 Sep 1993 15:47:13 -0400
Received: from spool.uu.net (via LOCALHOST) by relay2.UU.NET with SMTP 
	(5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA21415; Wed, 15 Sep 93 15:47:03 -0400
Received: from srg.UUCP by uucp1.uu.net with UUCP/RMAIL
	(queueing-rmail) id 154600.22919; Wed, 15 Sep 1993 15:46:00 EDT
Received: from ceres.srg.af.mil by srg.srg.af.mil
	id aa01257; Wed, 15 Sep 93 15:37:41 EDT
From:	culliton@srg.af.mil (Tom Culliton x2278)
X-Mailer: SCO System V Mail (version 3.2)
To:	malte@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de, rc@hawkwind.utcs.toronto.edu
Subject: Re:  list operators
Date:	Wed, 15 Sep 1993 15:38:27 -0400
Message-Id: <9309151538.aa26471@ceres.srg.af.mil>

I'm not much worried about these proposals because I just can't imagine
Byron incorporating them into the mainstream rc, but also just couldn't
resist making some comment on the second one.  

> and dropping one element from a list:
> 
> 	* = ( 1 2 3 4 )
> 	; echo $*(-3)
> 	3
> 	; echo $*
>  	1 2 4
> 
> Malte

The proposed syntax is a REALLY BAD IDEA.  Now something like:

	; x = ( 1 2 3 4 5 )
	; y = $x(-3)		# all members except 3
	; echo $x
	1 2 3 4 5
	; echo $y
	1 2 4 5

might be reasonable, but having a reference to the list modify it (without
assignment) is really disgustingly bad taste.

Tom