slicing lists

[castironpi at gmail.com]

On May 9, 3:17 pm, castiro... at gmail.com wrote:
> On May 9, 10:11 am, Yves Dorfsman <y... at zioup.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > castiro... at gmail.com wrote:
> > > The only thing is, is there is another natural meaning to [a,b:c].
>
> > > Counting grids on the diagonals, the rational set is well defined:
>
> > > 0: 0, 0
> > > 1: 1, 0
> > > 2: 0, 1
> > > 3: 2, 0
> > > 4: 1, 1
> > > 5: 0, 2
> > > 6: 3, 0
> > > 7: 2, 1
> > > ...
>
> > > Thencefore ( 2, 0 ) : ( 3, 0 ) is well defined.  Thencefore,
>
> > > a,b:c,d
>
> > > is not; x[a,b:c,d]= x[a]+ x[b:c]+ x[d].
>
> > I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you give me a simple piece of code to
> > show an example ?
>
> > Yves.http://www.SollerS.ca-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yves, sadly, simple piece of code is not the writer's forte.  I was
> merely advising against leaping in to syntax additions, changes even.
> The point was, even though a,b:c,d is shown ill-defined, a,b:c may not
> be.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Now: In the case of enumerate( rationals ), list slicing can be plenty
fine.  Any use to the dirational enumerate?