dpb <email@example.com> wrote in message <firstname.lastname@example.org>... > On 2/12/2013 5:14 PM, Bruno Luong wrote: > > dpb <email@example.com> wrote in message <firstname.lastname@example.org>... > >> On 2/12/2013 3:35 PM, Bruno Luong wrote: > > > >> > >> Why would anyone write such, anyway, and expect anything meaningful? > > > > What is "meaningful"? > > > > What do you think > > 1i:10-2i > > should do?
I'm fine if it does exactly like currently. I link to a post where the behavior is described. I never complain about it, excepted that the behavior is currently not documented.
> > Now, I can see there could argued to be a syntax for complex series > sequence generation, but it would need a complex delta...the previous > doesn't have any apparent difference that corresponds at all to the > implied unit difference of real colon inputs. > > And, while it indeed was once a novel concept for complex variables, > it's now been quite some time... :) > > I was, however, speaking in terms of defined ML syntax, not hypothetical.
If one wants to develop a function that accept any kind of numerical data, the behavior should be defined. So it is legitimate to speak how colon behave when feed in complex data. That's how a specification of a function is defined and developed. This is the basic concept of software development.
Now if user can't make head or tail with the behavior of such and such function, that's his problem.
Recently I use the fact that (:1) return an empty set, therefore allow me to save 1 test in my implementation. Is it meaningless?