[#74190] [Ruby trunk Feature#12134] Comparison between `true` and `false` — duerst@...
SXNzdWUgIzEyMTM0IGhhcyBiZWVuIHVwZGF0ZWQgYnkgTWFydGluIETDvHJzdC4KCgpUc3V5b3No
3 messages
2016/03/07
[#74269] Type systems for Ruby — Rob Blanco <ml@...>
Dear ruby-core,
5 messages
2016/03/10
[#74395] [Ruby trunk Feature#12142] Hash tables with open addressing — shyouhei@...
Issue #12142 has been updated by Shyouhei Urabe.
3 messages
2016/03/17
[ruby-core:74333] [Ruby trunk Feature#12133][Feedback] Ability to exclude start when defining a range
From:
shyouhei@...
Date:
2016-03-15 06:57:27 UTC
List:
ruby-core #74333
Issue #12133 has been updated by Shyouhei Urabe. Status changed from Open to Feedback Do you have any practical situation where this is useful? The proposed grammar is ultra-hard to implement at sight (if not impossible). You are advised to show us why this feature is worth tackling. ---------------------------------------- Feature #12133: Ability to exclude start when defining a range https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12133#change-57457 * Author: Ryan Hosford * Status: Feedback * Priority: Normal * Assignee: ---------------------------------------- An intuitive, approach would be to allow defining ranges like so: ~~~ [1..10] [1..10) (1..10] (1..10) ~~~ ... where a square bracket indicates boundary inclusion and a parenthesis represents boundary exclusion. The syntax there is obviously not going to work, but it demonstrates the idea. A more feasible, still intuitive, solution might look like the following ~~~ (1..10) # [1..10] (1...10) # [1..10) ... Alternatively: (1..10).exclude_end (1..10).exclude_start # (1..10] (1...10).exclude_start # (1..10) ... Alternatively: (1..10).exclude_start.exclude_end ~~~ For consistency, I think we'd also want to add `#exclude_start?` & `#exclude_end` methods. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/ Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe> <http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>