On 2011-02-12 02:25, bearophile wrote:
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.
Why can't we just get rid of that floating point literal syntax, it just
causes problem.
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
--
/Jacob Carlborg
