On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 9:57 AM Tobias Pape <Das.Linux at gmx.de> wrote:
>
>
> > On 13.09.2019, at 08:50, Fabio Niephaus <lists at fniephaus.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 12 Sep 2019 at 1:02 am, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
> > "An Interval reversed is generally an Interval, except when made of Float."
> > Should ReversedInterval be renamed to ReversedFloatInterval then?
> >
> > +1
> >
> > Interval was designed for Integers only.  IMO, it should be copied to a separate class, FloatInterval, to implement this capability.
> >
> > Does anyone actually need Float support in Interval at this point? Or would it make sense to just disallow Floats in Interval for the time being?
> >
>
> I don't see why supporting
>
>         2.4 to: 4.5
>
> would be a bad idea. At least, it has a proper mathematical meaning.
> Question is, whether just
>
>         (1.0 to: 3.0) includes: 2.5
>
> should be true or also
>
>         (1 to: 3) includes: 2.5
>
> :D

I didn't say it's a bad idea, I wanted to know if someone actually
needs it right now. If not, I'd just flag this as a "nice to have"
feature we could support in a future release, but not the one we are
working on at the moment.

Fabio

>
> > Fabio
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Nonetheless, this seems to fix #testIntervalOfFloatLast and
> > #testIntervalOfFloatReversed of IntervalTest. Do we want to integrate
> > this proposal or shall we mark these two tests as expected failures?
> >
> > Fabio
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>