On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 05:00:46 +0900, trans.  (T. Onoma)
<transami / runbox.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday 13 October 2004 03:46 pm, Charles Hixson wrote:
> | I think the built-in parts of the language need to work together
> | smoothly, and the current range does that properly and efficiently.  
> But in fact, much of the discussion has been about how Range behavior is NOT
> "proper" nor efficient.

And I, for one, disagree with people who say that Range behaviour is wrong.

I use both the discrete and continuous behaviours of Ranges. I use
both the inclusive and exclusive forms of Ranges. Never in the same
context, but Matz has suggested that is not likely to be enough reason
to have separate classes (I count four: ContinuousInclusiveRange,
ContinuousExclusiveRange, DiscreteInclusiveRange,
DiscreteExclusiveRange).

I find absolutely nothing surprising about the current behaviour of
ranges: they act both continuous and discrete, depending on how you
use them. There are a couple of issues: it is not possible to do:

    (0..5).step(0.25)
    (0...5).step(0.25)

This would make it possible to deal with non-integer discrete ranges.
Is *that* worth doing, perhaps? I think so.

It doesn't, however, mean that Ranges are fundamentally broken.

-austin
-- 
Austin Ziegler * halostatue / gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin / halostatue.ca
: as of this email, I have [ 5 ] Gmail invitations