在Bash中，变量可以显示为标量和数组:

$ a=3
$ echo $a
3
$ echo ${a[@]}    # treat it like an array
3
$ declare -p a    # but it's not
declare -- a="3"
$ a[1]=4          # treat it like an array
$ echo $a         # acts like it's scalar
3
$ echo ${a[@]}    # but it's not
3 4
$ declare -p a
declare -a a='([0]="3" [1]="4")'
$ a=5             # treat it like a scalar
$ echo $a         # acts like it's scalar
5
$ echo ${a[@]}    # but it's not
5 4
$ declare -p a
declare -a a='([0]="5" [1]="4")'

KSH做同样的事情，但是使用排版而不是声明。

当你在zsh中这样做时，你得到的是子字符串赋值而不是数组:

$ a=3
$ a[2]=4          # zsh is one-indexed by default
$ echo $a
34
$ a[3]=567
$ echo $a
34567
$ a[3]=9
$ echo $a
34967
$ a[3]=123         # here it overwrites the first character, but inserts the others
$ echo $a
3412367
$ a=(1 2 3)
$ echo $a
1 2 3              # it's an array without needing to use ${a[@]} (but it will work)
$ a[2]=99          # what about assignments?
$ echo $a
1 99 3

来自边远吗?

为什么c#的List<T>.AddRange()不让我添加T的子类型的元素?阀门列表< T > () ! 微软只需要多写一行代码:

public void AddRange<S>(
    IEnumerable<S> collection
) where S : T

INTERCAL可能是最奇怪的语言特征的最佳汇编。我个人最喜欢的是COMEFROM语句，它(几乎)与GOTO相反。

COMEFROM is roughly the opposite of GOTO in that it can take the execution state from any arbitrary point in code to a COMEFROM statement. The point in code where the state transfer happens is usually given as a parameter to COMEFROM. Whether the transfer happens before or after the instruction at the specified transfer point depends on the language used. Depending on the language used, multiple COMEFROMs referencing the same departure point may be invalid, be non-deterministic, be executed in some sort of defined priority, or even induce parallel or otherwise concurrent execution as seen in Threaded Intercal. A simple example of a "COMEFROM x" statement is a label x (which does not need to be physically located anywhere near its corresponding COMEFROM) that acts as a "trap door". When code execution reaches the label, control gets passed to the statement following the COMEFROM. The effect of this is primarily to make debugging (and understanding the control flow of the program) extremely difficult, since there is no indication near the label that control will mysteriously jump to another point of the program.

大约在1977年，我在Lisp中添加了“format”函数，那时“printf”甚至还不存在(我是从与Unix相同的源:Multics复制的)。它一开始很无辜，但后来被一个接一个的特征填满了。当Guy Steele引入迭代和相关特性时，事情就失控了，这些特性被Common Lisp X3J13 ANSI标准所接受。下面的示例可以在Common Lisp The Language, 2nd Edition第22.3.3节中的表22-8中找到:

(defun print-xapping (xapping stream depth)
  (declare (ignore depth))
  (format stream
      "~:[{~;[~]~:{~S~:[->~S~;~*~]~:^ ~}~:[~; ~]~ ~{~S->~^ ~}~:[~; ~]~[~*~;->~S~;->~*~]~:[}~;]~]"
      (xectorp xapping)
      (do ((vp (xectorp xapping))
           (sp (finite-part-is-xetp xapping))
           (d (xapping-domain xapping) (cdr d))
           (r (xapping-range xapping) (cdr r))
           (z '() (cons (list (if vp (car r) (car d)) (or vp sp) (car r)) z)))
          ((null d) (reverse z)))
      (and (xapping-domain xapping)
           (or (xapping-exceptions xapping)
           (xapping-infinite xapping)))
      (xapping-exceptions xapping)
      (and (xapping-exceptions xapping)
           (xapping-infinite xapping))
      (ecase (xapping-infinite xapping)
        ((nil) 0)
        (:constant 1)
        (:universal 2))
      (xapping-default xapping)
      (xectorp xapping)))

这让我惊艳

#define _ -F<00||--F-OO--;
int F=00,OO=00;main(){F_OO();printf("%1.3f\n",4.*-F/OO/OO);}F_OO()
{
            _-_-_-_
       _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
    _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
 _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
  _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
    _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
       _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
           _-_-_-_
}