Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote: > Steve Schveighoffer wrote: > >> 4. While we're at it, should uniform(a, b) generate by default something > >> in [a, b] or [a, b)? > > > > [a,b) > > > > Every other piece of range-like code is zero based, and excludes the > > upper bound. This should be no different. It makes the code simpler too. > > I tried both versions, and it turns out my code is almost never simpler > with open integral intervals. Most of the time I need something like: > > auto x = uniform(rng, -100, 100); > auto y = uniform(rng, 0, 100); > > and I need to remember to actually ask for 101 instead of 100. True, > when you want a random index in an array, open intervals are more > convenient. > > One purity-based argument is that in a random number you may actually > ask for the total range: > > auto big = uniform(rng, uint.max / 2, uint.max); > > If the interval is open I can't generate uint.max. > > Anyway, I checked the C++ API and it turns out they use closed intervals > for integers and open intervals for reals. I know there's been a lot of > expert scrutiny there, so I suppose I better copy their design. > > > Andrei
D uses a..b notation as part of the language to mean "[)". Because of that, it makes more sense to make that the default in D vs. other languages that don't have such constructs.
