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

Re: Revision of SRFI 66 available



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