Well, it makes sense if you think of the implementation of to:by:do: as
a loop.
How would you implement the stop condition? Does every case where
start>stop mean you want to walk backwards?
Joachim
Am 05.01.17 um 09:29 schrieb Dimitris Chloupis:
cant say it makes sense for me , why it assumes I want to +0.01 when I
give 0.5 to 0.01 when it should assume I want to -0.01 ? is there a
scenario that would not be true ?
in any case its better than reversedo , thank you
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:20 AM Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com
<mailto:esteba...@gmail.com>> wrote:
this is correct behaviour (since 0.50 + 0.01 will be bigger than
0.01),
correct way to define this step is:
(0.50 to: 0.01 by: -0.01) do:[ :each| tp := tp + each ].
(by: *-*0.01), negative
Esteban
On 5 Jan 2017, at 09:15, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.al...@gmail.com
<mailto:kilon.al...@gmail.com>> wrote:
hey guys I try to do a reverse interval like this
tp := 0.0.
(0.50 to: 0.01 by: 0.01) do:[ :each| tp := tp + each ].
tp inspect.
and I get nothing , is this a bug or a feature ?
i see a reverse method but looks weird to go that way and not
very smalltalky / pharoic
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Objektfabrik Joachim Tuchel mailto:jtuc...@objektfabrik.de
Fliederweg 1 http://www.objektfabrik.de
D-71640 Ludwigsburg http://joachimtuchel.wordpress.com
Telefon: +49 7141 56 10 86 0 Fax: +49 7141 56 10 86 1
