ok fair enough, I am not saying I am right and you are wrong, just wanted to understand the reasoning Would it not "Interval empty" made more sense ? or is (1 to: 0) convenient in some way in your scenario ? On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:59 AM Nicolai Hess <nicolaihess@gmail.com> wrote:
2017-01-05 9:46 GMT+01:00 Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios@gmail.com>:
mainly because in my 30 years of coding for fun I never gave a damn what C or other languages try to convince us what expected behaviour is , its one of the big reason why I code in Smalltalk ;)
plus I hate C/C++ with a vengeance , so :D
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:38 AM Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5 Jan 2017, at 09:29, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios@gmail.com> wrote:
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 ?
We often use (1 to: 0) for an "empty" interval. All this code wouldn't work if we would take this as a reversed (0 to: 1) interval.
take it this way: in C youâll need to write:
for (int i = 0.50; i >= 0.1; i-=0.01) â¦
which is also explicit about the decreasing âiâ⦠so I donât understand why it does not makes sense for you :)
Esteban
in any case its better than reversedo , thank you
On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:20 AM Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@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.alios@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