From: samuel@... Date: 2016-01-12T09:08:55+00:00 Subject: [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: