Jeremy Howard wrote: > The reason that having (1..) implies having (..-1) is that if you allow > (1..), then this is a valid construct: > > @dot_dot_neg_one = reverse (map {-$_} (1..)); > > which is identical to (..-1)! No, NOT identical. The same set of numbers, yes, but generated in the opposite order. (..-1) should generate -INF first, but obviously it can't do that. (..$n) is an impossible construct, and should be a fatal error -- presuming it even gets past the lexer... -- John Porter
- Re: Infinite lists (was Re: RFC 24 (v1) Semi-finite (lazy)... John Porter
- Re: Infinite lists (was Re: RFC 24 (v1) Semi-finite (lazy)... Ted Ashton
- Re: Infinite lists (was Re: RFC 24 (v1) Semi-finite (lazy)... John Porter
- Re: Infinite lists (was Re: RFC 24 (v1) Semi-finite (lazy)... Ted Ashton
- Re: Infinite lists (was Re: RFC 24 (v1) Semi-finite (lazy)... James Mastros
- Re: Infinite lists (was Re: RFC 24 (v1) Semi-finite (lazy)... Jeremy Howard
- Re: Infinite lists (was Re: RFC 24 (v1) Semi-finite (lazy)... Ted Ashton
- Re: Infinite lists (was Re: RFC 24 (v1) Semi-finite (lazy)... Damian Conway
- Re: Infinite lists (was Re: RFC 24 (v1) Semi-finite (lazy)... Ted Ashton
- Re: Infinite lists (was Re: RFC 24 (v1) Semi-finite (lazy)... Damian Conway
- Re: Infinite lists (was Re: RFC 24 (v1) Semi-finite (lazy)... John Porter
- Re: Infinite lists (was Re: RFC 24 (v1) Semi-finite (lazy)... Jeremy Howard
- Re: Infinite lists (was Re: RFC 24 (v1) Semi-finite (lazy)... Jeremy Howard
- Re: Infinite lists (was Re: RFC 24 (v1) Semi-finite (lazy)... Damian Conway
- Re: Infinite lists (was Re: RFC 24 (v1) Semi-finite (lazy)... Jeremy Howard
- Re: Infinite lists (was Re: RFC 24 (v1) Semi-finite (lazy)... Ariel Scolnicov
- Re: Infinite lists (was Re: RFC 24 (v1) Semi-finite (lazy)... Jeremy Howard
- Re: Infinite lists (was Re: RFC 24 (v1) Semi-finite (lazy)... Leon Brocard