mainly because in my 30 years of coding for fun I never gave a damn what C or other languages try to convince us what expected behaviour is , its one of the big reason why I code in Smalltalk ;)
plus I hate C/C++ with a vengeance , so :D On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:38 AM Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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> > 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> 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 > > >
