Re: unexpected behavior of "do for"

[<pl...@pi...>]

On 05/03/12 21:59, Arun Persaud wrote:
> An automatic switch to an increment of -1 would also be OK for me,
> although I wouldn't expect it;)
>
> Arun

I would advise against such "special" cases. It's confusing (unexpected) 
and as I said before makes producing predictable output complicated.

Arun's example case of the extra plot would be difficult to deal with in 
a general way and would probably require some testing of the values and 
conditional code before the "for" to stop things like that happening.


The automatic switch to negative increment would probably do something 
unhelpful like printing both "triangles" of his matrix of plots. Or 
something even more unexpected.

Peter.