On 17/03/16 5:27 pm, Manuel Gómez wrote: I'm not necessarily proposing this, but would it not be also reasonable for this to read "the list terminates when the current element equals e3 or the next element would be greater than e3"? It's slightly more wordy, but it captures the intuition that [a,b..c] ends at c.
On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 12:18 AM, Richard A. O'Keefe
From experience in other programming languages, I don't have that intuition. Indeed, from experience in Haskell, I don't expect [a,b..c] to end at c. [1,3..6] ends at 5, not 6.
I apologize — I believe I failed to convey what I tried to say. Perhaps I should instead have said «ends at c at the furthest». The intuition I refer to is that c is a possibly included bound for the list [a,b..c], so that the list [a,b..c] certainly shall not have any element beyond c, but if it does actually get to c, that’s where it ends. In that sense I find it natural that [1,3..6] ends at 5: otherwise it would have elements beyond 6, namely 7. [0,2..6], on the other hand, ends at 6, and indeed does not have any element beyond 6. [6,6..6] would have the initial 6, and then it should have no other element beyond 6, so it should in fact equal [6] under this intuition.