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
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
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
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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
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 ?
take it this way: in C youâll need to write: for (int i = 0.50; i >= 0.1; i-=0.01) ⦠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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
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 ?
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
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
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
It is just something I often saw, I don't even know if this is by-design. I think there are good arguments for both interpretations 2017-01-05 10:33 GMT+01:00 Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.alios@gmail.com>:
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
participants (6)
-
Dimitris Chloupis -
Esteban Lorenzano -
John Pfersich -
jtuchel＠objektfabrik.de -
Nicolai Hess -
Nicolas Passerini