<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">Already done: <b>please look at collections!</b><div><br></div><div>at present, you can say aRange.from(1)to(5).reversed, or aRange.from(5)downTo(1)</div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Andrew</div><div><br>On 1 Jul 2014, at 14:00, Kim Bruce <<a href="mailto:kim@cs.pomona.edu">kim@cs.pomona.edu</a>> wrote:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">for loops are easy when you are counting up by 1: for (1..5) do {n -> print(n)}<br>Do we have operations that make it easy to count up by a number different from 1?<br>How about counting down?<br><br>I didn't see anything helpful in the current implementation of .. as lists. (I looked for a reverse method and couldn't find one -- perhaps that should be part of the list type.)<br><br></blockquote><div><br></div>There are no reverse, or reversed, methods on lists at present. Would you like them? (reverse would mutate the current object; reversed would create a new object). </div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite">Do we care? I'd like to allow counting down, but don't care as much about counting by an increment.<br><br>I'm guessing that we don't care that there is no "do..while..." (guaranteeing execution of the loop body at least once). </blockquote><br></div><div>More generally, do we seek completeness in our suite of provided methods, or adequacy? I like the rich set of methods provide by Smalltalk, for example, but simplicity would argue for a minimal set of methods. Perhaps different sets in different preludes (beginning Grace would’ve a minimal set, other dialects could have more.)</div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Andrew</div><div><br></div></body></html>