From: Logan Capaldo <logancapaldo@...>
Date: 2006-08-31T06:59:13+09:00
Subject: Re: [RCR] Array.step


On Aug 30, 2006, at 5:45 PM, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:

> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Logan Capaldo wrote:
>
>>
>> On Aug 30, 2006, at 1:52 PM, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:
>>
>>> Array.step(0,-4)
>>>     ==>[]                           # <- this one's wrong
>>
>> I'd almost rather make the RCR for changing step rather than  
>> adding Array.step. It's more general, and with 1.9 magic iterators  
>> I think it would obviate the need to even have Array.step, e.g.:  
>> 1.step(3).to_a. Make n.step { ... } work as well and make it walk  
>> backwards if its from high to low.
>
> indeed.  just to be clear, however, the RCR is for Array.step not  
> the exact
> impl.  the reason i wrote the one i did is because it can be  
> translated to C
> easily.
>
Well I don't really care persay about the implementation (I was just  
having fun with the golf), just the semantics. I still think this RCR  
would be better served as an addition of these capabilities to  
Numeric#step, and then if desired also an Array.step. That's just my  
opinion though.

> regards.
>
> -a
> -- 
> what science finds to be nonexistent, we must accept as  
> nonexistent; but what
> science merely does not find is a completely different matter... it  
> is quite
> clear that there are many, many mysterious things.
> - h.h. the 14th dalai lama
>