There is not much of a rationale...
It's just a little personally preference of mine:
I use [x, y] to denote a "closed
interval" (i.e. set of all real numbers z, x <= z <= y),
whereas you talk about a finite set
(not closed, not dense). [You do, don't you?
Or do the procedures allow 3.4 as index
to be rounded to 3?] In addition, I myself
stopped using the notation in standards
and the like because in the past I managed
to confuse some of my colleagues with
it (in particular some less mathemtically
inclined electrical and mechanical engineers);
{a, ..., b} seems to be clear to anyone.
But, as I said, its a minor thing and
the intention is clear anyhow.
----
Dr. Sebastian Egner
Senior Scientist Channel Coding & Modulation
Philips Research Laboratories
Prof. Holstlaan 4 (WDC 1-051, 1st floor, room 51)
5656 AA Eindhoven
The Netherlands
tel: +31 40 27-43166
fax: +31 40 27-44004
email: xxxxxx@philips.com
srfi-66xxxxxx@srfi.schemers.org
06-06-2005 15:09
To:
Sebastian Egner/EHV/RESEARCH/xxxxxx@PHILIPS
cc:
srfi-66@srfi.schemers.org
Subject:
Re: Revision of SRFI 66 available
Classification:
I intend to follow all of your suggestions in the next revision except
one (modulo the naming issue), so I'll just follow up on that single issue:
Sebastian Egner <xxxxxx@philips.com> writes:
> 4. Notation "range [0, 255]" and "indices [source-start,
source-start +
> n)":
> How about "{0, ..., 255}" and "{source-start, ...,
source-start + n - 1}"?
The rationale for this isn't clear to me---[x, y] is standard high
school notation (at least in the US and Germany) for inclusive ranges,
similarly for [x, y), which is inclusive on the left-hand side, and
exclusive on the right-hand side. I could probably be persuaded to
use inclusive intervals everywhere, but it isn't clear to me that this
would be an improvement.
--
Cheers =8-} Mike
Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla