On 17.12.2013 16:22, Francesco Cattoglio wrote:
On Monday, 16 December 2013 at 22:53:24 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
What's wrong with having it implemented analogous to
std.random.uniform -- taking a bounds parameter which allows for
open and/or closed at either end, with the default being "[)" ... ?
By the way, I'd also like to see that open/closed-at-either-end
specialization extended to std.range.iota().
Oooh, do I hear a volunteer for cleaning up iota? ;-)
While you're at it, you might as well implement:
https://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10762
:-P
T
Well, I might actually volunteer :)
Any pointer about implementing that enhancement? Can one just forgot about the
different versions (one for integrals, one for floating points) and just
implement the One True Iota?
One problem of OTI (One True Iota) is floating-point inaccuracies. What does
this function return? (hint: it's not 16777217)
float foo() {
return 16777216f + 1.0f;
}
So if you want iota(16777217f, 16777245f, 1.0f) to not go into an infinite loop,
you will probably need to special-case floating-point. If you assume that you
can duplicate whatever is passed to iota, you could do something like this:
T _front;
size_t _index;
U _step;
void popFront() {
++_index;
if (_front + _index * _step != _front) {
_front += _index * _step;
_index = 0;
}
}
I don't think even this covers all bases (consider the case where the inaccuracy
of real is > size_t.max).
I'm playing with writing a new iota now too. Could be fun to see what different
solutions people come up with.
--
Simen
