> Am 06.04.2016 um 22:17 schrieb Xiaodi Wu via swift-evolution > <[email protected]>: > >> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 1:43 PM, Dave Abrahams <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> on Wed Apr 06 2016, Erica Sadun <erica-AT-ericasadun.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Apr 6, 2016, at 12:16 PM, Dave Abrahams via swift-evolution >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> (0..<199).striding(by: -2) >>> >>> are even or odd. >>> >>> (0..<199).striding(by: -2): 0..<199 == 0...198 Even >>> (1..<199).striding(by: -2): 1..<199 == 1...198 Even >> >> I understand the logic that got you there, but I find it incredibly >> counter-intuitive that striding by 2s over a range with odd endpoints >> should produce even numbers... I can't imagine any way I'd be convinced >> that was a good idea. >> >>> (0..<198).striding(by: -2): 1..<198 == 0...197 Odd >>> (1..<198).striding(by: -2): 1..<198 == 1...197 Odd > > One other aspect of the counterintuitiveness is that > `(a..<b).striding(by: -c)` has been discussed, even in this thread, as > essentially reversing the sequence given by `(a..<b).striding(by: c)`. > That would not be the case with the logic presented here. I worry that > there is no obviously correct interpretation of `(a..<b).striding(by: > -c)` and wonder if any conclusion arrived at would necessarily be more > confusing that `stride(from:to:by:)`.
Yep, that's my impression, too. -Thorsten _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
