From: Dave Thomas <dave@...>
Date: 2008-03-15T05:28:40+09:00
Subject: Range#member? semantics seem wrong

Range#member? has been changed so that it the start and end of the  
range are scalars, then

    member?(val)  is the same as min <= val <= max

This means that (1..5).member?(3.5) returns true. In 1.8, member meant  
that the value was one of the possible elements in the range (so was  
effectively the same as range.to.include?(val).

It seem to me that the old way was more intuitive. We now have three  
methods on range (===, include?, and member?) that all do the same  
thing, and none allow you to test for membership.



Dave