Robert Klemme schrieb:

> "Pea, Botp" <botp / delmonte-phil.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:20050114070636.2F2EB83F5 / mx2.delmonte-phil.com...
 >>
>>(...)
 >>
>>  int.times(starting=0, step=1) {|i| block }
>>
>>I hope this would not break old code, right?
> 
> Sure, but semantics of this method will be broken.  The block will no
> longer execute int times.  We have #step for that as know.

I thought he just wanted to change the values passed into the block. Instead of

   0, 1, ..., n-1

it would be

   start, start + step, ..., start + (n-1)*step

Looks useful to me.

Regards,
Pit