Stupid little iota of an idea

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2011-02-12 02:25, bearophile wrote:
> 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.

Why can't we just get rid of that floating point literal syntax, it just 
causes problem.

>> 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


-- 
/Jacob Carlborg