On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Simon J. Gerraty wrote:
> I was originally going to remove the :tW and :tw modifiers since :[*]
> and :[@] have the same effect, but for the little code they consume I
> don't mind leaving them as is.  The W modifier for :C and :S is also
> handy.

I don't much like having :[0], :[*], :tW, :[@] and :tw as five ways of
doing only two different things, but I don't know which of them to keep
and which to remove.

Both :[m..n] and :[n..m] are treated identically, so both :[2..-1] and
:[-1..2] mean "everything from the second word to the last word".  If we
ever plan to use syntax like this to reverse the order of words in the
result (but if we don't implement that functionality just yet), then it
might be a good idea to say that it's an error (for now) for the indices
to be in the wrong order.

--apb (Alan Barrett)