Thu, 23 Aug 2001 15:09:52 +0200
> Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
> > I think for loops on floating point types is a mistake,
> > since the step size isn't constant.
> Constancy is desirable here ?
I think so. Can you come up with any uses, where a
non-constant step size would be acceptable?
> What do you think about enumeration, whose
> representations are specified as sparse ones ?
> # type E is (A, B, C, D);
> # for E use (A => 0, B => 10, C => 100, D => 1_000);
No problem. There is a difference between the representation
and the "abstract" view.
> In other words, I consider that for-loop iteration could
> be re-viewed from abstract viewpoint that "what is the
> next", 'Succ.
> # And Floatings now have Succ.
I can see your point. Maybe this is just one of those cases,
where the programmers have to think about what they want to
> So, your mention that "difference between the requested
> and the actual resolution" would be of discussion domain
> for "what Small is".
> When we need to match the requested and the actual, we
> can specify its Small with representation clause, as you
As I had forgotten. :-)
> Am I on wrong way ?
I think you may have a good point.
Maybe the whole reason human beings came into existence was
because the Earth wanted plastic and couldn't produce it any