[ruby-core:72817] [Ruby trunk - Bug #11975] Range#last is not consistent and possibly does not do what is expected.

Issue #11975 has been updated by Samuel Williams.


Nakada-san, `(0.0...1.0).last` would probably give the same error as `(0.0...1.0).to_a`?

Marc, even though it's intentional, and even documented, it's still not obvious that this is desirable behaviour. What I did find, is an equivalent method, `max`, which does do what I needed. I know practically speaking that this is not possible to fix this issue. Perhaps the best course of action would be to (a) not do anything or (b) deprecate `last` since it's behaviour is confusing and there are several alternatives.

----------------------------------------
Bug #11975: Range#last is not consistent and possibly does not do what is expected.
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/11975#change-56059

* Author: Samuel Williams
* Status: Rejected
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: 
* ruby -v: 2.3.0
* Backport: 2.0.0: UNKNOWN, 2.1: UNKNOWN, 2.2: UNKNOWN, 2.3: UNKNOWN
----------------------------------------
The following example demonstrates an inconsistency with Range:

This is expected behaviour:

~~~
(0..10).last => 10
(0..10).to_a.last => 10
~~~

This is unexpected behaviour:

~~~
(0...10).last => 10 # (should be 9?)
(0...10).to_a.last => 9
~~~

I believe that Range#last should give the last valid value for a range. Discussion?



-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Unsubscribe: <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>