Stupid little iota of an idea

[bearophile]

Michel Fortin:

> No one noticed yet that the a..b:c syntax causes ambiguity? Tell me, 
> how do you rewrite this using the new proposed syntax:
> 
> 	auto aa = [iota(a, b, c): 1, iota(d, e): 2];

Right, that's why in another post I have said that syntax replaces most iota usages. There are some situations where you can't use it well. This is another situation I've shown in the enhancement request:
iota(10.,20.)
Writing it like this is not sane:
 10...20.


> Interval is clear only as long as there's no step value mentioned. 
> Having a step value is quite a stretch from the usual notion of an 
> interval.

Right, but I think it's acceptable still, and better than iota.


> I like a lot so's suggestion "walk". I'm not sure it's much clearer 
> than iota though.

It's better than iota, but not by much.

Bye,
bearophile