Toshitaka: > 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 do. > So, your mention that "difference between the requested > and the actual resolution" would be of discussion domain > for "what Small is". Yes. > When we need to match the requested and the actual, we > can specify its Small with representation clause, as you > know. As I had forgotten. :-) > Am I on wrong way ? I think you may have a good point. Jacob -- Maybe the whole reason human beings came into existence was because the Earth wanted plastic and couldn't produce it any other way.