Re: Range[imin,imax,di]; was it better in 3.0 than in 4.0 ?

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg19588] Re: [mg19570] Range[imin,imax,di]; was it better in 3.0 than in 4.0 ?*From*: BobHanlon at aol.com*Date*: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 01:34:25 -0400*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

Ted, As in your example with Pi and E, Version 4 appears to work if the designated step is atomic Range[a, a + 6m, m] /. m -> 2n {a, a + 2*n, a + 4*n, a + 6*n, a + 8*n, a + 10*n, a + 12*n} Alternatively, NestList[# + 2n &, a, 6] or, just for laughs, List @@ Simplify[(2n)^7 * Pochhammer[a/(2n), 7]] Bob Hanlon In a message dated 9/2/99 4:37:42 AM, ErsekTR at navair.navy.mil writes: >Range[imin,imax,di] had an interesting capability in version 3.0, but the >capability is gone in version 40. > >-------------------------------- >Using version 3.0: > >In[1]:= >Range[a,a+12 n, 2n] > >Out[1]= >{a,a+2 n,a+4 n,a+6 n,a+8 n,a+10 n,a+12 n} > >----------------------------------------------- > >I thought that was rather nice, but using version 4.0 we get: > > >In[1]:= >Range[a,a+12 n,2n] > >Range::range: Range specification in Range[a,a+12 n,2 n] is not a >machine-size integer. > >Out[1]= >Range[a,a+12 n,2 n] > > >Now contrary to what the message above suggests, Range doesn't need Integer >arguments. Both version 3 and version 4 give the same result in the >following example. > > >In[2]:= >Clear[x]; >Range[x- Pi, x+ Pi, E] > >Out[2]= >{-Pi + x, E - Pi + x, 2*E - Pi + x} >