On 1 Mar 2019, at 12:22, Tim Mackinnon <tim@testit.works> wrote:
Actually thats quite a good suggestion - it probably should have been:
#upTo: #downTo: #to:by:
In the first place (but Iâm guessing this change will never happen)
I like this too. Why would this not happen ? It is just one selector more. I think the only possible issue is that #to:do: is known by the compiler, which makes it faster than any other iteration, even do: - there is always a tradeoff between readability and raw speed.
On 1 Mar 2019, at 05:35, K K Subbu <kksubbu.ml@gmail.com> wrote:
On 28/02/19 6:33 PM, Tim Mackinnon wrote:
So I would expect â1 to: 0â to see: 1 -> 1 2 -> 0.
It is difficult for code to guess the intent of the coder. Did the coder intend an decreasing sequence or a stopping condition (i == end or i > end?). Perhaps, we could use an explicit selector:
5 downto: 1
to disambiguate between the two cases.
Regards .. Subbu