Well, it makes sense if you think of the implementation of to:by:do: as a loop.
How would you implement the stop condition? Does every case where start>stop mean you want to walk backwards?

Joachim

Am 05.01.17 um 09:29 schrieb Dimitris Chloupis:
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 ?��

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��



-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Objektfabrik Joachim Tuchel          mailto:jtuchel@objektfabrik.de
Fliederweg 1�� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��http://www.objektfabrik.de
D-71640 Ludwigsburg                  http://joachimtuchel.wordpress.com
Telefon: +49 7141 56 10 86 0�� �� �� �� ��Fax: +49 7141 56 10 86 1