Michel Fortin: > No one noticed yet that the a..b:c syntax causes ambiguity? Tell me, > how do you rewrite this using the new proposed syntax: > > auto aa = [iota(a, b, c): 1, iota(d, e): 2];
Right, that's why in another post I have said that syntax replaces most iota usages. There are some situations where you can't use it well. This is another situation I've shown in the enhancement request: iota(10.,20.) Writing it like this is not sane: 10...20. > Interval is clear only as long as there's no step value mentioned. > Having a step value is quite a stretch from the usual notion of an > interval. Right, but I think it's acceptable still, and better than iota. > I like a lot so's suggestion "walk". I'm not sure it's much clearer > than iota though. It's better than iota, but not by much. Bye, bearophile