2017-01-05 9:46 GMT+01:00 Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.al...@gmail.com>: > 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 ? >> >> We often use (1 to: 0) for an "empty" interval. All this code wouldn't work if we would take this as a reversed (0 to: 1) interval.
> >> 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 >> >> >>
