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 you���ll need to write:��

for (int i = 0.50; i >= 0.1; i-=0.01) ���

which is also explicit about the decreasing ���i������ so I don���t 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��