On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 2:59 AM, Jon Lang wrote:
> Michael Zedeler wrote:
>> Jon Lang wrote:
>>> As for Str, I'm not sure that we should go so far as to say that you
>>> _can't_ create RangeIterators over them, so much as to say that the
>>> default step algorithm is defined only for single-charact
Jon Lang wrote:
Michael Zedeler wrote:
Proposed changes:
It shouldn't be possible to construct RangeIterators over Str (apart from
single length strings) or Complex using the Range operator (..).
I'd go one step further with Complex, to say that Range isn't a useful
concept at all so l
Timothy S. Nelson wrote:
I think a Complex range only makes sense if you provide 4 endpoints,
not 2, but I haven't been following the conversation, so I'll leave it
up to the Complex number experts :).
(start-angle, start-length)
:by(angle-step, length-factor)
--
Ruud
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, Michael Zedeler wrote:
Thanks to everyone who has posted their thoughts on Ranges.
Here are the conclusions I have drawn:
Ranges are for checking whether something is within a given interval.
RangeIterators are for iterating over elements in a Range with a given step
size
Michael Zedeler wrote:
> Proposed changes:
>
> It shouldn't be possible to construct RangeIterators over Str (apart from
> single length strings) or Complex using the Range operator (..).
I'd go one step further with Complex, to say that Range isn't a useful
concept at all so long as "before" and
Thanks to everyone who has posted their thoughts on Ranges.
Here are the conclusions I have drawn:
Ranges are for checking whether something is within a given interval.
RangeIterators are for iterating over elements in a Range with a given
step size using :by.
We discussed using "Series" or "
