Re: User-definable table length

On Mon, Mar 19, 2018 at 11:08 AM, pocomane wrote:

> All we need is USER-DEFINABLE TABLE LENGTH

Pratically, are you proposing a new {...#} contructor that is just
syntactic sugar for:

It seems that you are focused on red herring (new constructor syntax) and overlooked main idea:

I suggest #t to become LHS-_expression_.

Actually, that's all.

And as optional addition, a convenient syntactic sugar

t = { ... #}

may be introduced for

t = { ... }

#t = select( '#', ... )

But even without this new constructor syntax my suggestion would be helpful.

The [...] constructor can be used instead

Yes, it's a good choice.

And there are several more possible variants exist.

But I'm not sure which syntax would be the best.

My proposed syntax {...#} is not nice indeed.