Actually thats quite a good suggestion - it probably should have been: #upTo: #downTo: #to:by:
In the first place (but I’m guessing this change will never happen) > On 1 Mar 2019, at 05:35, K K Subbu <kksubbu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 28/02/19 6:33 PM, Tim Mackinnon wrote: >> So I would expect “1 to: 0” to see: >> 1 -> 1 >> 2 -> 0. > > It is difficult for code to guess the intent of the coder. Did the coder > intend an decreasing sequence or a stopping condition (i == end or i > end?). > Perhaps, we could use an explicit selector: > > 5 downto: 1 > > to disambiguate between the two cases. > > Regards .. Subbu >
