"Don" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:ijmndc$3e5$1...@digitalmars.com... > Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> >> I like "interval", too. >> >> I do think the name "iota" is a nice extra reason to just use a..b or >> a..b:c like you say. It also makes it clear that it's a series of >> discrete values rather than a true mathematical range, since that's >> exactly how foreach already uses a..b: as a series of discrete values. > > I don't like interval at all, because I don't think it includes the notion > of 'stepping'. An interval is just, everything from A to B, without > necessarily specifying how you reach everything in that interval. Whereas > iota includes the stepping. > (I would like to see intervals in the language, but just as an [a,b] > pair). > > OTOH iota() is unintuitive to me, and I do keep reading it as itoa(). > Sadly I don't have any better suggestions.
I do agree that 'interval' is inaccurate because it doesn't imply stepping, but I still find 'iota' to be more inaccurate, it just means "a small amount", it carries no notion of range or endpoints or anything like that.