On 2018-01-30 10:51 AM, Dirk Laurie wrote:
2018-01-30 14:23 GMT+02:00 Soni "They/Them" L. <fakedme@gmail.com>:
On 2018-01-30 06:58 AM, Francisco Olarte wrote:
On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 1:11 AM, Soni "They/Them" L. <fakedme@gmail.com>
wrote:
...
Also, rationals are still numbers. They're just not "Lua numbers"
(objects
with type(x) == "number"). Any language with operator overloading (e.g.
C++)
lets me have numeric for with rationals. Except Lua. (Python doesn't
have
numeric for at all so it doesn't count.)
C++ does not have numeric for, so it doesn't count either.
Francisco Olarte.
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) { printf("%d\n", i); }
Looks like it does, it's just more flexible than Lua's.
No 'for' is more flexible than Lua's.
for a,b,c,as_many_as_you_like in myiter(anything) do
end
Sorry, C++'s numeric for is more flexible than Lua, because it gives you
more control over the iteration.
You can also use rational objects which overload < and ++ in C++ numeric
fors, while you can't in Lua even with __add and __lt.