Stupid little iota of an idea

[Michel Fortin]

On 2011-02-11 19:55:05 -0500, bearophile <bearophileHUGS at lycos.com> said:

> I am not going to invent a new wonderful name for it, sorry :-) My 
> votes, in decreasing order of preference:
> 1) By far, a syntax like a..b:c, or missing that, a syntax like a..b

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];


> 3) If you refuse the word "range", then my third choice is "interval". 
> It's as cleas as range, but it's a bit worse because it's longer.

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.

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

-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin at michelf.com
http://michelf.com/