Hi all


thanks for your feedback, and to calm Chris C. and Eliot, I don't
intend to add yet another convenience message™ just because.
If there had been immediate consensus, probably. I just found it
stunning that quite a few people at my lab had to think hard to
a) explain the problem and b) suggest a name :).

Best regards
	-Tobias

On 07.07.2015, at 23:27, Chris Cunningham <cunningham.cb at gmail.com> wrote:

> #steps: reminds me of mophic - step interval, right?
> 
> #withNext: reminds me of #withIndexDo:.  I'd expect it to provide two arguments to the block (until I learned otherwise).
> 
> #next: is stream, and definitely not what we want.
> 
> I like Eliot's questioning of adding a new method at all, although I'm guilty of doing that a lot.
> 
> What about a new constructor on Interval?
> 
> Interval startAt: x next: z
> Interval startAt: x next: z by: b
> ?
> 
> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 1:06 PM, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
> On 07.07.2015, at 06:09, Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all
> >
> > I've got a small naming puzzle:
> >
> > So we have
> >       x to: y
> > that makes
> >       Intervall (x, x+1, x+2, ... , y)
> >
> > And we can do
> >       x to: x + z
> > to get
> >       Intervall (x, x+1, x+2, ..., x+z)
> >
> >
> > But we have x twice in there.
> >
> > What would you name the message
> >       x ???? z
> > that gives
> >       Intervall (x, x+1, x+2, ..., x+z)
> >
> > I'm curious for your answers :)
> >
> > Best regards
> >       -Tobias
> 
> 
> x steps: z
> x steps: z by: b
> 
> x withNext: z
> x withNext: z by: b
> 
> - Bert -