> On 5 Jan 2017, at 09:29, Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.al...@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 you’ll need to write: for (int i = 0.50; i >= 0.1; i-=0.01) … which is also explicit about the decreasing “i”… so I don’t 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 <esteba...@gmail.com > <mailto:esteba...@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.al...@gmail.com >> <mailto:kilon.al...@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 >
