Don writes:
> 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
"Don" 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
Lars T. Kyllingstad wrote:
I guess steps() would be a possible name for iota(), but then I would
have to come up with a new name for my range. ;)
Might I suggest iota()? ;)
--
Simen
On Fri, 18 Feb 2011 22:10:37 +0100, Don wrote:
> 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 ra
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"bearophile" wrote in message
news:ij473k$1tfn$1...@digitalmars.com...
Andrei:
Aside from the fact that "range" has another meaning in D, the word does
not convey the notion that iota adds incremental steps to move from one
number to another. "Iota" does convey that not
On 11/02/2011 23:55, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/11/11 7:07 AM, foobar wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
I don't find the name "iota" stupid.
Andrei
I want to make a few comments, arising from several different posts in
this discussion.
First, before this discussion that Ary sta
Andrej Mitrovic:
> I'm getting more and more convinced to join the iota camp. The new
> syntax barely saves any characters, and is potentially confusing.
Simen kjaeraas:
> This is also an interesting point. If a..b were to be a separate type,
> opSlice would no longer need to exist, it could be
On 02/13/2011 01:17 PM, foobar wrote:
Lutger Blijdestijn Wrote:
first rule of usability: don't listen to users
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20010805.html
I fail to see how that page ( which talks about website design ) applies to
what I've said.
It says that you should look at what peopl
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> On 2/13/11 3:15 AM, foobar wrote:
> > Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/11/11 7:07 AM, foobar wrote:
> >>> Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> >>>
>
> I don't find the name "iota" stupid.
>
> Andrei
> >>>
> >>> Of course _you_ don't. However practic
foobar wrote:
> Lutger Blijdestijn Wrote:
>
>>
>> first rule of usability: don't listen to users
>>
>> http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20010805.html
>>
>
> I fail to see how that page ( which talks about website design ) applies
> to what I've said. It says that you should look at what people _
Sun, 13 Feb 2011 08:32:31 +0200, so wrote:
>> 1. and .1 are very minor improvements mainly for the laziest developers
>> out there. It's getting harder and harder to get rid of them. Avoiding
>> these kind of conflicts between core language features should be
>> priority #1.
>
> For lazy develope
On 2/13/11 3:15 AM, foobar wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
On 2/11/11 7:07 AM, foobar wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
I don't find the name "iota" stupid.
Andrei
Of course _you_ don't. However practically all the users _do_ find it
poorly named, including other developers in the proj
Lutger Blijdestijn Wrote:
>
> first rule of usability: don't listen to users
>
> http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20010805.html
>
I fail to see how that page ( which talks about website design ) applies to
what I've said.
It says that you should look at what people _do_ instead of what they _sa
foobar wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
>
>> On 2/11/11 7:07 AM, foobar wrote:
>> > Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I don't find the name "iota" stupid.
>> >>
>> >> Andrei
>> >
>> > Of course _you_ don't. However practically all the users _do_ find it
>> > poorly named, including o
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> On 2/11/11 7:07 AM, foobar wrote:
> > Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I don't find the name "iota" stupid.
> >>
> >> Andrei
> >
> > Of course _you_ don't. However practically all the users _do_ find it
> > poorly named, including other developers in the projec
On 02/12/2011 10:57 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
I'd maybe vote for the syntax change.
But maybe we could extend the array slice syntax to construct ranges:
filter!`a % 2 == 0`([1..5])
auto r = [0 .. 5];
So if the slice sits on its own it becomes a range. Or is this too
scary/ambiguous?
I don't
1. and .1 are very minor improvements mainly for the laziest developers
out there. It's getting harder and harder to get rid of them. Avoiding
these kind of conflicts between core language features should be priority
#1.
For lazy developers? i don't think so, how lazy one can get anyways, after
"Olivier Pisano" wrote in message
news:ij5mb2$spd$1...@digitalmars.com...
> Le 12/02/11 10:36, Olivier Pisano a écrit :
>> 4) I believe a function name should tell what it does. An alphabet
>> letter (greek or not) is a poor indication and should be avoided. "sum"
>> is a more reasonable choice t
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
f[1..5] // opSlice with ints, or opIndex with a range?
This is also an interesting point. If a..b were to be a separate type,
opSlice would no longer need to exist, it could be a simple overload
of opIndex. This would easily enable multi-dimensional slicing, which
curre
foreach (step; steps)
{
writeln( [iota(min, max, step), iota(min, max, step+1)] );
writeln( [[min..max : step], [min..max : step+1]] );
max += step;
}
Sorry for spamming. :)
I'm getting more and more convinced to join the iota camp. The new
syntax barely saves
This would make more sense as a comparison:
auto iot1 = [iota(0, 10, 2), iota(0, 10, 3)];
auto iot2 = [2 : iota(0, 10, 2), 3 : iota(0, 10, 3)];
auto syn1 = [[0..10 : 2], [0..10 : 3]];
auto syn2 = [2: [0..10 : 2], 3: [0..10 : 3]];
// iot1 == [[0, 2, 4, 6, 8], [0, 3, 6, 9]]
But again, I don't know who uses ranges as keys to an AA. So my guess
is you would see this very rarely in code, so it's not a fair
comparison to iota. It does show that in this case there's no
ambiguity, unless I'm mistaken.
On 2/12/11, Peter Alexander wrote:
> On 12/02/11 9:16 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message
>>> Not all users dislike iota, and besides arguments ad populum are
>>> fallacious. Iota rocks. But have at it - vote away, and I'll be glad if a
>>> better name for iota co
"Jacob Carlborg" wrote in message
news:ij6emq$27so$2...@digitalmars.com...
> On 2011-02-12 02:25, bearophile wrote:
>> Michel Fortin:
>>
>>> No one noticed yet that the a..b:c syntax causes ambiguity? Tell me,
>>> how do you rewrite this using the new proposed syntax:
>>>
>>> auto aa = [iota(a, b
"Andrej Mitrovic" wrote in message
news:mailman.1581.1297547851.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
> I'd maybe vote for the syntax change.
>
> But maybe we could extend the array slice syntax to construct ranges:
>
> filter!`a % 2 == 0`([1..5])
> auto r = [0 .. 5];
>
> So if the slice sits on it
Peter Alexander:
> As Michel pointed out, a..b:c is ambiguous.
>
> auto foo = [ 1..10 : 2, 2..20 : 3 ];
>
> Is foo an AA of ranges to ints, or an array of stepped ranges?
Lazy strided intervals as associative array keys is not a common need. But
there are few other situations:
auto r = pred ?
On 12/02/11 9:16 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message
Not all users dislike iota, and besides arguments ad populum are
fallacious. Iota rocks. But have at it - vote away, and I'll be glad if a
better name for iota comes about.
I vote "a..b:c" and "step"
As Mich
Andrej Mitrovic:
> I'd maybe vote for the syntax change.
>
> But maybe we could extend the array slice syntax to construct ranges:
>
> filter!`a % 2 == 0`([1..5])
> auto r = [0 .. 5];
>
> So if the slice sits on its own it becomes a range. Or is this too
> scary/ambiguous?
In Python there are
I'd maybe vote for the syntax change.
But maybe we could extend the array slice syntax to construct ranges:
filter!`a % 2 == 0`([1..5])
auto r = [0 .. 5];
So if the slice sits on its own it becomes a range. Or is this too
scary/ambiguous?
I don't really like them alone:
filter!`a % 2 == 0`(1..5
"Andrei Alexandrescu" wrote in message
news:ij4iel$ig$2...@digitalmars.com...
> On 2/11/11 7:07 AM, foobar wrote:
>> Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I don't find the name "iota" stupid.
>>>
>>> Andrei
>>
>> Of course _you_ don't. However practically all the users _do_ find it
>> poorly name
On 11/02/11 11:55 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Not all users dislike iota, and besides arguments ad populum are
fallacious. Iota rocks. But have at it - vote away, and I'll be glad if
a better name for iota comes about.
Andrei
finiteArithmeticProgression :-)
Come on! It's the only name that
Sat, 12 Feb 2011 19:42:59 +0200, Max Samukha wrote:
> On 02/12/2011 07:12 PM, retard wrote:
>>
>> You're just arguing against his principles:
>>
>> "..besides arguments ad populum are fallacious"
>>
>> http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?
>> art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=129453
On 2011-02-12 18:18, bearophile wrote:
Jacob Carlborg:
Why can't we just get rid of that floating point literal syntax, it just
causes problem.
I agree, the interval syntax (with or without optional stride) may be allowed
for integral values only.
(Elsewhere I have even suggested to disallo
On 02/12/2011 06:02 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-02-12 00:55, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/11/11 7:07 AM, foobar wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
I don't find the name "iota" stupid.
Andrei
Of course _you_ don't. However practically all the users _do_ find it
poorly named, includ
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> And how on earth does iota make sense in this context? I don't see how you
> could
> possibly look at iota(0, 10) or iota(2, 21, 3); and think that it _anything_
> to
> do with its dictionary definiton (per: http://www.merriam-
> webster.com/dictionary/iota )
>
> 1: t
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> you're not going to misunderstand what it [iota] means based on its name.
>
Again, people *will* and actually, people *have* misunderstood it
based on its name.
Jerome
--
mailto:jeber...@free.fr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeber...@jabber.fr
On 02/12/2011 07:12 PM, retard wrote:
You're just arguing against his principles:
"..besides arguments ad populum are fallacious"
http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?
art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=129453
Yes, I use ad populum all the time for its effectiveness.
I'll try
Jacob Carlborg:
> Why can't we just get rid of that floating point literal syntax, it just
> causes problem.
I agree, the interval syntax (with or without optional stride) may be allowed
for integral values only.
(Elsewhere I have even suggested to disallow number literals like 1. or .1 :-) )
Sat, 12 Feb 2011 17:54:24 +0200, Max Samukha wrote:
> On 02/12/2011 04:52 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> On Saturday 12 February 2011 06:21:15 bearophile wrote:
>>> Jonathan M Davis:
On Saturday 12 February 2011 03:25:29 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> And that's part of what makes it best.
On 2011-02-12 00:55, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/11/11 7:07 AM, foobar wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
I don't find the name "iota" stupid.
Andrei
Of course _you_ don't. However practically all the users _do_ find it
poorly named, including other developers in the project.. This is t
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 rep
On 02/12/2011 02:05 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/12/11 6:52 AM, spir wrote:
On 02/12/2011 12:25 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/12/11 5:02 AM, bearophile wrote:
Jonathan M Davis:
interval is slightly better, but as you mention, the step value
muddles that
abstraction.
It's not m
On Saturday 12 February 2011 07:53:34 Jérôme M. Berger wrote:
> Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > On Saturday 12 February 2011 02:33:12 Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
> >> On 02/11/2011 11:14 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> >>> If anyone tried to use iota to actually mean something as a variable
> >>> or function
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Saturday 12 February 2011 02:33:12 Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
>> On 02/11/2011 11:14 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>> If anyone tried to use iota to actually mean something as a variable
>>> or function name, I'd be suggesting that they pick a better nam.
>> So you're saying
On 02/12/2011 04:52 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Saturday 12 February 2011 06:21:15 bearophile wrote:
Jonathan M Davis:
On Saturday 12 February 2011 03:25:29 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
And that's part of what makes it best.
Agreed.
If you agree on that, then you can't be a designer for a
On Saturday 12 February 2011 07:34:43 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 2/12/11 8:21 AM, bearophile wrote:
> > Jonathan M Davis:
> >> On Saturday 12 February 2011 03:25:29 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> >>> And that's part of what makes it best.
> >>
> >> Agreed.
> >
> > If you agree on that, then yo
On 2/12/11 8:21 AM, bearophile wrote:
Jonathan M Davis:
On Saturday 12 February 2011 03:25:29 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
And that's part of what makes it best.
Agreed.
If you agree on that, then you can't be a designer for a public API.
Oops. Someone stop the release of 2.052 NOW! :o)
A
On 2/12/11 8:40 AM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Nonsense is the part of what makes it best? This one goes in my
favorite quotes bin.
Better put it in that bin with quotes taken out of context.
Andrei
On 2/12/11 6:52 AM, spir wrote:
On 02/12/2011 12:25 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/12/11 5:02 AM, bearophile wrote:
Jonathan M Davis:
interval is slightly better, but as you mention, the step value
muddles that
abstraction.
It's not muddled enough to make it worse than iota(). "iota" h
On Saturday 12 February 2011 06:21:15 bearophile wrote:
> Jonathan M Davis:
> > On Saturday 12 February 2011 03:25:29 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> > > And that's part of what makes it best.
> >
> > Agreed.
>
> If you agree on that, then you can't be a designer for a public API.
I'm not saying th
Nonsense is the part of what makes it best? This one goes in my
favorite quotes bin.
Jonathan M Davis:
> On Saturday 12 February 2011 03:25:29 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> > And that's part of what makes it best.
>
> Agreed.
If you agree on that, then you can't be a designer for a public API.
Bye,
bearophile
On 02/12/2011 02:36 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
With something like walk
or interval, the name gives you a better idea of what it does, but it's _still_
not good enough for you to know based on the name and, since they mean something
closer to what the function actually does but not quite, they r
On 02/12/2011 01:46 PM, J Chapman wrote:
series
Unfortunately series in maths means the sum of a sequence (at least in F, but I
bet the same applies in E). Rather evokes accum/reduce/fold (for people who
think at the sense in maths).
Denis
--
_
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.c
On Saturday 12 February 2011 03:25:29 Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 2/12/11 5:02 AM, bearophile wrote:
> > Jonathan M Davis:
> >> interval is slightly better, but as you mention, the step value muddles
> >> that abstraction.
> >
> > It's not muddled enough to make it worse than iota(). "iota" ha
On Saturday 12 February 2011 02:33:12 Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
> On 02/11/2011 11:14 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > If anyone tried to use iota to actually mean something as a variable
> > or function name, I'd be suggesting that they pick a better nam.
>
> So you're saying you don't like Andrei's
On 02/12/2011 12:25 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/12/11 5:02 AM, bearophile wrote:
Jonathan M Davis:
interval is slightly better, but as you mention, the step value muddles that
abstraction.
It's not muddled enough to make it worse than iota(). "iota" has nearly no
relation with its pu
series
Andrei:
> > It's not muddled enough to make it worse than iota(). "iota" has nearly no
> > relation with its purpose in Phobos.
>
> And that's part of what makes it best.
To design APIs for other people you have to understand why this is awfully
wrong.
Bye,
bearophile
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> On 2/11/11 7:07 AM, foobar wrote:
> > Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I don't find the name "iota" stupid.
> >>
> >> Andrei
> >
> > Of course _you_ don't. However practically all the users _do_ find it
> > poorly named, including other developers in the projec
On 2/12/11 5:02 AM, bearophile wrote:
Jonathan M Davis:
interval is slightly better, but as you mention, the step value muddles that
abstraction.
It's not muddled enough to make it worse than iota(). "iota" has nearly no
relation with its purpose in Phobos.
And that's part of what makes it
On 2/12/11 5:02 AM, bearophile wrote:
Jonathan M Davis:
interval is slightly better, but as you mention, the step value muddles that
abstraction.
It's not muddled enough to make it worse than iota(). "iota" has nearly no
relation with its purpose in Phobos.
genSequence is pretty much the
On 02/12/2011 12:02 PM, bearophile wrote:
genSequence is pretty much the only
> thing that I've been able to think of that I like at all,
sequence(10,20,2) is another option, as long as "interval".
Know what? I've been thinking for a while that "sequence" would be quite a good
name for D ran
Jonathan M Davis:
> interval is slightly better, but as you mention, the step value muddles that
> abstraction.
It's not muddled enough to make it worse than iota(). "iota" has nearly no
relation with its purpose in Phobos.
> genSequence is pretty much the only
> thing that I've been able to
On 02/12/2011 04:49 AM, spir wrote:
That page looks listing various meanings in foreign languages, but mostly
stincks with the greek letter; it does not mention any sense everday sense iota
actually has. Example fro fr.wiktionary:
Oops, sorry for that noise, Denis
--
_
vita es e
On 02/12/2011 02:40 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Not all users dislike iota, and besides arguments ad populum are fallacious.
Iota rocks. But have at it - vote away, and I'll be glad if a better name for
iota comes about.
delta
Like it, but for a single step (of arbit
On 2/12/11 3:59 AM, Christopher Nicholson-Sauls wrote:
On 02/11/11 18:46, so wrote:
atob(1, 6) // easy to mix things like atoi
ptoq(1, 6) // rocks imo!
walk(1, 6) // now you have admit this is the best.
I dunno. When I see 'walk' I think of collections, not ranges. But...
I don't think it'
On 2/12/11 12:46 AM, Brad Roberts wrote:
On 2/11/2011 4:07 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/11/11 8:32 AM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
Am 10.02.2011 12:40, schrieb spir:
Certainly, because it's /highly/ important for a community of programmers to
share the same "culture". And names are the main s
On 02/12/2011 09:44 AM, "Jérôme M. Berger" wrote:
spir wrote:
On 02/12/2011 03:05 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
While iota isn't clear, it _does_ have the advantage that you're
not going to _mis_understand
Maybe you say this because iota does not mean anything for you (?). I
can easily imagine
On 02/11/2011 11:14 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
If anyone tried to use iota to actually mean something as a variable
or function name, I'd be suggesting that they pick a better nam.
So you're saying you don't like Andrei's chosen name? ;)
On 02/12/11 04:08, Olivier Pisano wrote:
> Le 12/02/11 10:36, Olivier Pisano a écrit :
>> 4) I believe a function name should tell what it does. An alphabet
>> letter (greek or not) is a poor indication and should be avoided. "sum"
>> is a more reasonable choice than "epsilon", even if that what we
On 02/11/11 19:36, Daniel Gibson wrote:
> Am 12.02.2011 02:25, schrieb bearophile:
>> 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];
>>
>>
Le 12/02/11 10:36, Olivier Pisano a écrit :
4) I believe a function name should tell what it does. An alphabet
letter (greek or not) is a poor indication and should be avoided. "sum"
is a more reasonable choice than "epsilon", even if that what we all
write in math.
Damn fever, I meant Sigma,
On 02/11/11 18:46, so wrote:
>> atob(1, 6) // easy to mix things like atoi
>> ptoq(1, 6) // rocks imo!
>
> walk(1, 6) // now you have admit this is the best.
I dunno. When I see 'walk' I think of collections, not ranges. But...
I don't think it'd be terribly ambiguous, at least.
For the record
Le 12/02/11 01:55, bearophile a écrit :
Andrei:
Not all users dislike iota,
A poll will tell how much this statement is true :-)
and besides arguments ad populum are fallacious.
That's true for scientific and engineering (or medical, etc) things but names are not a
science. The process
Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Friday 11 February 2011 20:01:23 spir wrote:
>> On 02/12/2011 03:05 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>>> While iota isn't clear, it _does_ have the advantage that you're
>>> not going to _mis_understand
>> Maybe you say this because iota does not mean anything for you (?). I
spir wrote:
> On 02/12/2011 01:55 AM, bearophile wrote:
>> 4) My fourth choice is "iota". It's short and it sticks in mind.
>
> 'Ψ' "psi" (beeing the forelast letter of the alphabet, just before
> omega, as everyone knows) would nicely suggest we're dealing with
> intervals half-open on the right-
Walter Bright wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Not all users dislike iota, and besides arguments ad populum are
>> fallacious. Iota rocks. But have at it - vote away, and I'll be glad
>> if a better name for iota comes about.
>
>
> delta
Could be, except that this is very often used
spir wrote:
> On 02/12/2011 03:05 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>> While iota isn't clear, it _does_ have the advantage that you're
>> not going to _mis_understand
>
> Maybe you say this because iota does not mean anything for you (?). I
> can easily imagine various appropriate uses of iota in a PL,
"Andrej Mitrovic" wrote in message
news:mailman.1524.1297475525.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
> On 2/12/11, Walter Bright wrote:
>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> Not all users dislike iota, and besides arguments ad populum are
>>> fallacious. Iota rocks. But have at it - vote away, and I'
On 2/11/2011 4:07 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 2/11/11 8:32 AM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
>> Am 10.02.2011 12:40, schrieb spir:
>>>
>>> Certainly, because it's /highly/ important for a community of programmers to
>>> share the same "culture". And names are the main support& vehicle for this
>>>
On Friday 11 February 2011 20:01:23 spir wrote:
> On 02/12/2011 03:05 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > While iota isn't clear, it _does_ have the advantage that you're
> > not going to _mis_understand
>
> Maybe you say this because iota does not mean anything for you (?). I can
> easily imagine var
Am 12.02.2011 04:49, schrieb spir:
> On 02/12/2011 02:36 AM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
>> Am 12.02.2011 02:25, schrieb bearophile:
>>> 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:
au
On 02/12/2011 03:05 AM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
While iota isn't clear, it _does_ have the advantage that you're
not going to _mis_understand
Maybe you say this because iota does not mean anything for you (?). I can
easily imagine various appropriate uses of iota in a PL, like:
* smallest re
On 02/12/2011 02:36 AM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
Am 12.02.2011 02:25, schrieb bearophile:
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
On 02/12/2011 01:55 AM, bearophile wrote:
4) My fourth choice is "iota". It's short and it sticks in mind.
'Ψ' "psi" (beeing the forelast letter of the alphabet, just before omega, as
everyone knows) would nicely suggest we're dealing with intervals half-open on
the right-hand side.
Denis
-
On 02/12/2011 01:46 AM, so wrote:
atob(1, 6) // easy to mix things like atoi
ptoq(1, 6) // rocks imo!
walk(1, 6) // now you have admit this is the best.
Not bad, after all walk is a series of steps ;-)
Denis
--
_
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com
On Friday, February 11, 2011 17:02:18 Michel Fortin wrote:
> On 2011-02-11 19:55:05 -0500, bearophile said:
> > I am not going to invent a new wonderful name for it, sorry :-) My
> > votes, in decreasing order of preference:
> > 1) By far, a syntax like a..b:c, or missing that, a syntax like a..b
On 2/12/11, Walter Bright wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Not all users dislike iota, and besides arguments ad populum are
>> fallacious. Iota rocks. But have at it - vote away, and I'll be glad if
>> a better name for iota comes about.
>
>
> delta
>
Now that's sexy. Makes me feel like a c
foobar wrote:
Ary Manzana Wrote:
According to the book "The Design of Everyday Things" the design of that
function name is wrong, it's not your fault and it's not because it was
3am. When many people make mistakes with regards to the design of
something it's *always* the design's fault, never
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Not all users dislike iota, and besides arguments ad populum are
fallacious. Iota rocks. But have at it - vote away, and I'll be glad if
a better name for iota comes about.
delta
Am 12.02.2011 02:25, schrieb bearophile:
> 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
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 s
Am 12.02.2011 01:46, schrieb so:
>> atob(1, 6) // easy to mix things like atoi
>> ptoq(1, 6) // rocks imo!
>
> walk(1, 6) // now you have admit this is the best.
Hmm I do kind of like it.
On 2011-02-11 19:55:05 -0500, bearophile said:
I am not going to invent a new wonderful name for it, sorry :-) My
votes, in decreasing order of preference:
1) By far, a syntax like a..b:c, or missing that, a syntax like a..b
No one noticed yet that the a..b:c syntax causes ambiguity? Tell me
On 02/12/2011 01:26 AM, so wrote:
Not all users dislike iota, and besides arguments ad populum are fallacious.
Iota rocks. But have at it - vote away, and I'll be glad if a better name for
iota comes about.
Andrei
You asked for it!
atob(1, 6) // easy to mix things like atoi
ptoq(1, 6) // rock
Andrei:
> Not all users dislike iota,
A poll will tell how much this statement is true :-)
> and besides arguments ad populum are fallacious.
That's true for scientific and engineering (or medical, etc) things but names
are not a science. The process of choosing names is part of ergonomics, i
atob(1, 6) // easy to mix things like atoi
ptoq(1, 6) // rocks imo!
walk(1, 6) // now you have admit this is the best.
On 02/12/2011 12:55 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Not all users dislike iota, and besides arguments ad populum are fallacious.
Iota rocks. But have at it - vote away, and I'll be glad if a better name for
iota comes about.
Proposed "interval" (which I understand as a quasi-synonym of range, ap
Not all users dislike iota, and besides arguments ad populum are
fallacious. Iota rocks. But have at it - vote away, and I'll be glad if
a better name for iota comes about.
Andrei
You asked for it!
atob(1, 6) // easy to mix things like atoi
ptoq(1, 6) // rocks imo!
1 - 100 of 175 matches
Mail list logo
