[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Revision of SRFI 66 available

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 66 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 66 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

I intend to follow all of your suggestions in the next revision except
one (modulo the naming issue), so I'll just follow up on that single issue:

Sebastian Egner <sebastian.egner@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> 4. Notation "range [0, 255]" and "indices [source-start, source-start + 
> n)":
> How about "{0, ..., 255}" and "{source-start, ..., source-start + n - 1}"?

The rationale for this isn't clear to me---[x, y] is standard high
school notation (at least in the US and Germany) for inclusive ranges,
similarly for [x, y), which is inclusive on the left-hand side, and
exclusive on the right-hand side.  I could probably be persuaded to
use inclusive intervals everywhere, but it isn't clear to me that this
would be an improvement.

Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla