Am 12.02.2011 02:25, schrieb bearophile: > 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
I think it's much better. Even having "steps" (or a stepsize) is obvious with walk. iota only makes sense when you know this from other languages/libraries or if your native spoken language has a similar word that can be somehow connected. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/iota doesn't give a real connection (and two English->German dictionaries I've checked don't either - one only listed iota as the greek letter, the other had mentions about something tiny) - it's just something small like that greek i-without-a-dot letter. There's nothing that connects it to a range of values with a fixed step size. Cheers, - Daniel
