I agree. And I think 0 should be illegal for a step size (but negative is ok).
John On 9/22/07, Soroosh Yazdani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 05:20:39PM -0700, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > > >> Also, [10..1] now returns [10], it should probably return the empty > > >> list. What about [10,11,.,0]? Also the empty list? I think so. > > >> Thoughts? > > I just want to say that despite the fact that I think [1..10] notation > is great, I don't like the idea of [1,3,..,10]. This notation, I think, can > be confusing in the long run. Along the same lines, I think [1..10, step=2] > is a great notation. > If the user wants a list that is more complicated, then they can try building > it from other constructs. > > Soroosh > > > > -- John Cremona --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
