Re: Numeric for loop with rationals

[Sean Conner <sean@...>]

It was thus said that the Great Dirk Laurie once stated:
> 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

  Oh, you mean something like:

	function range(low,high,inc)
	  inc = inc or 1
	
	  local function bump()     
	    local r = low
	    low     = low + inc
	    if r <= high then
	      return r
	    end
	  end
	
	  return bump              
	end

which respects __add and __le so something like

	for x in range(r(1,10),r(10,10),r(1,10)) do
	  print(x)
	end

will work?  Neat!

  -spc