OK, this last bit sounds a little harsh because I didn't clarify that
the least denominator thing is actually a benefit.
My first post sort of showed how you could use array indices as open
number ranges. Maybe, we could use a class word Interval instead of
OpenInterval or Range? I'll turn to whatever direction works for most
people, but I would like some semblance of a solid interval (i.e. left
and right sides).
Todd
···
On Nov 21, 2007 2:52 AM, Todd Benson <caduceass@gmail.com> wrote:
On Nov 19, 2007 9:13 AM, Yossef Mendelssohn <ymendel@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 6:54 am, "Todd Benson" <caduce...@gmail.com> wrote:> What I don't understand is why so many people find an open-ended range
> to be pointless. That is to say I do understand why --- because
> they're set on iterating over the range --- but I don't understand why
> they consider that to be the only use of a range.Well, I suppose for me it is sort of a weird use of the word Range.
Maybe OpenInterval would work better?>
> Everyone I've seen who's interested in this (myself included) is using
> these ranges for another reason, to indicate a range of acceptable (or
> maybe even unacceptable values). A range like 5..Infinity is not
> intended for iteration, but for comparison.5..Infinity is not 5..nil. I think it's also not a
5..some_number_to_be_determined_in_the_future. I guess that's the
point I was trying to make. It violates the generic least common
denominator practice present not only in the language, but also its