Re: Infinite lists (was Re: RFC 24 (v1) Semi-finite (lazy) lists)

[Jeremy Howard]

John Porter wrote:
> Jeremy Howard wrote:
> > The reason that having (1..) implies having (..-1) is that if you allow
> > (1..), then this is a valid construct:
> >
> >   @dot_dot_neg_one = reverse (map {-$_} (1..));
> >
> > which is identical to (..-1)!
>
> No, NOT identical.  The same set of numbers, yes, but generated in
> the opposite order.   (..-1) should generate -INF first, but obviously
> it can't do that.  (..$n) is an impossible construct, and should be
> a fatal error -- presuming it even gets past the lexer...
>
Well, maybe... If you think the idea of 'generation order' is meaningful. I
would have thought that it should look like all the elements are generated
together--since I don't think we want to confuse lists and streams.

Anyhow, maybe this is a moot point. Damian's recanted his RFC, and I'm still
trying to decide whether this is important enough to finish off a redraft of
it that I started...