Michael Zedeler wrote: >> The obvious (default) choice for a step size would be the precision of >> the more precise of the two values. So 0.0001 in your example above. >> > > Well... maybe. How do you specify the intended precision, then? If I want > the values from 1 to 2 with step size 0.01, I guess that writing > > 1.00 .. 2.00 > > won't be sufficient. Trying to work out the step size by looking at the > precision of things that are double or floats doesn't really sound so > feasible, since there are a lot of holes in the actual representation, so > 1.0001 may become 1.0, yielding very different results. > > It could be really nice to come up with something dwimmy, but I can't really > se any really good candidates, when it comes to floating point numbers and > strings.
For floating point numbers, assume a default step size of 1, just like integers; use the :by adverb to specify a different step size, either by supplying a floating point number to be added in or by supplying a block that generates the next step when fed the current one. So: 1.00 .. 2.00 # 1.00, 2.00 1.00 .. 2.00 :by .01 # 1.00, 1.01, 1.02, ..., 1.98, 1.99, 2.00 Also, I want to second David Green's point: we're not talking "Range" and "Interval" here; we're talking "Range" and "Series". A Series would be a kind of Range that has the additional ability of generating a list. The :by adverb would be a property of a Series, but not a Range. Using Num for your endpoints would result in a Series; using Complex for your endpoints should result in an error: Complex numbers don't have a viable definition of "before" or "after", let alone "between". -- Jonathan "Dataweaver" Lang
