Re: Feedback on Iterable Numbers Proposal?

> On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 7:40 PM, kdex wrote: >> On that note, it might make more sense to add range literals. On 26 February 2017 at 20:50, T.J. Crowder wrote: > That was my thought as well -- or at least, ranges if not range literals. (A >

Re: Feedback on Iterable Numbers Proposal?

On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 7:40 PM, kdex wrote: > On that note, it might make more sense to add range literals. > That was my thought as well -- or at least, ranges if not range literals. (A simple `Range` is trivial to implement, but I'd rather see something ubiquitous.) I don't see

Re: Feedback on Iterable Numbers Proposal?

A Range type seems to me clearer, more powerful, and less magical. Even without syntax, the clarity seems better: //for-of syntaxfor (const i of Range.upto(5)){ //do something with i } for(const i of Range.from(3, 15)){ //do something with i } Whether Range's are a class or it's just a

Re: Feedback on Iterable Numbers Proposal?

On that note, it might make more sense to add range literals. On Sunday, February 26, 2017 8:39:28 PM CET kdex wrote: > I like this proposal a lot! > > The only thing I'd like to remark is that I can see people getting confused > about the exact range that you're iterating over. > Some

Re: Feedback on Iterable Numbers Proposal?

On that note, it might make more sense to add range literals. On Sunday, February 26, 2017 8:39:28 PM CET kdex wrote: > I like this proposal a lot! > > The only thing I'd like to remark is that I can see people getting confused > about the exact range that you're iterating over. > Some

Re: Feedback on Iterable Numbers Proposal?

I like this proposal a lot! The only thing I'd like to remark is that I can see people getting confused about the exact range that you're iterating over. Some languages provide constructs to include/exclude the last element in the range. On Sunday, February 26, 2017 8:00:39 PM CET John Henry