<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">On Mar 1, 2016, at 12:25 PM, Xiaodi Wu <<a href="mailto:xiaodi.wu@gmail.com" class="">xiaodi.wu@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class="">To clarify, I am not troubled that stride(to:by:) as it is now doesn't<br class=""><div class=""><div class="">pick up the sign. The point is that, if renamed to<br class="">stride(towards:by:), the English meaning of "towards" implies that it<br class="">would pick up the sign. It is a critique of the suggested renaming,<br class="">not a critique of the algorithm being renamed.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>Summarizing: "Using `towards` suggests that the by value picks up the vector direction and</div><div>can be misleading.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Response:</div><div><br class=""></div><div>1. yeah.</div><div>2. but no solution is going to be ideal.</div><div>3. alternatives: <code style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Consolas, 'Liberation Mono', Menlo, Courier, monospace; padding: 0.2em 0px; margin: 0px; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.0392157); border-top-left-radius: 3px; border-top-right-radius: 3px; border-bottom-right-radius: 3px; border-bottom-left-radius: 3px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);" class="">approaching</code><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, 'Segoe UI', Arial, freesans, sans-serif, 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol'; font-size: 16px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">, </span><code style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Consolas, 'Liberation Mono', Menlo, Courier, monospace; padding: 0.2em 0px; margin: 0px; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.0392157); border-top-left-radius: 3px; border-top-right-radius: 3px; border-bottom-right-radius: 3px; border-bottom-left-radius: 3px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);" class="">movingTowards</code><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, 'Segoe UI', Arial, freesans, sans-serif, 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol'; font-size: 16px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">, </span><code style="box-sizing: border-box; font-family: Consolas, 'Liberation Mono', Menlo, Courier, monospace; padding: 0.2em 0px; margin: 0px; background-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.0392157); border-top-left-radius: 3px; border-top-right-radius: 3px; border-bottom-right-radius: 3px; border-bottom-left-radius: 3px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51);" class="">advancedTowards</code><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, 'Segoe UI', Arial, freesans, sans-serif, 'Apple Color Emoji', 'Segoe UI Emoji', 'Segoe UI Symbol'; font-size: 16px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">. </span>Included in the latest </div><div>revision of the proposal. </div><div><br class=""></div><div>My big issues are "this thing says it goes through and it doesn't, this thing says it goes to and it doesn't".</div><div>So long as those are fixed reasonably well, I am happy, even without the naming being perfect.</div><div><br class=""></div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class="">I must misunderstand what it is you tweaked. You still write that the<br class="">other proposal doesn't remove the need for manual epsilon adjustment?<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div><div>In order to separate this into two proposals, I had to make sure they weren't depending on each other.</div><div>So this proposal *only* addresses the semantic mismatch I described 4 lines up.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Manual epsilon adjustment is simply a floating point thing, and is discussed at length in the</div><div>other proposal (Again, keep refreshing gist.github because both are works in progress.)</div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">[first...last] subsumes [from...through]. You might call this a..>b<br class=""><br class=""></blockquote><br class="">I understand that you believe this makes the behavior of "through"<br class="">more sensible. I could even agree. But do we need this third stride<br class="">style, whatever it's called? Essentially, my question is: besides the<br class="">issue of epsilon adjustments, when have you encountered a case in your<br class="">code where you've needed to stride beyond the end point?<br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""><div class="">First, I renamed it with the two options a...>b, a..>=b and a..=>b to suggest "reach or greater". </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Second, yes, and I added a big new section on canonical use cases.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">-- E</div><div class=""><br class=""></div></body></html>