Conceptually, maybe? But of course the sequence is lazily evaluated, so the only state stored in an instance of StrideTo is one value for the current iteration; all the other properties in a StrideTo are just the inputs to the stride function, and no length is computed let alone stored. I get that you want something that represents the input instead of the output, but what do you gain from that type not achievable otherwise?<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 6:59 PM Brent Royal-Gordon <<a href="mailto:brent@architechies.com">brent@architechies.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">> I'm confused. There is an instance owning the start and end. It's called StrideTo or StrideThrough, conforms to Sequence (with a FIXME comment that it should conform to Collection) and is distinct from Range and from the Strideable bounds themselves. Is that different from what you're describing?<br>
<br>
Yes, it is different. StrideTo and StrideThrough represent the sequence resulting from the striding operation. If there was only one of them, you would probably call it StrideSequence. They are the *result* of the `stride` function or `striding` method.<br>
<br>
What I'm talking about is a single instance which represents what you are striding *over*, but *not* the length of the stride. It is an *input* to the `stride` function or `striding` method.<br>
<br>
Does that make sense?<br>
<br>
--<br>
Brent Royal-Gordon<br>
Architechies<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>