From: Austin Ziegler <halostatue@...>
Date: 2004-08-12T22:19:59+09:00
Subject: Re: Bug in Range#end with exclusive ranges?

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 16:01:11 +0900, Martin DeMello
<martindemello@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:
>> In mathematical range notation, the difference between 0..50 and 0...50 is
>> [0, 50] and [0, 50). Thus:
> 
> It doesn't seem quite right that Ruby should do this though
> irb(main):001:0> a = (0..50)
> a = (0..50)
> => 0..50
> irb(main):002:0> b = (0.0..50.0)
> b = (0.0..50.0)
> => 0.0..50.0
> irb(main):004:0> a.last
> a.last
> => 50
> irb(main):005:0> a.last.class
> a.last.class
> => Fixnum
> irb(main):006:0> b.last.class
> b.last.class
> => Float
> irb(main):007:0> a.include?(49.9)
> a.include?(49.9)
> => true
> irb(main):008:0> b.include?(49.9)
> b.include?(49.9)
> => true
> 
> Shouldn't Range#include work differently for integers?

No. You want Range#member?

----------------------------------------------------- Range#member?
   rng.member?(val)   =>  true or false
-------------------------------------------------------------------
   Return +true+ if _val_ is one of the values in _rng_ (that is if
   +Range#each+ would return _val_ at some point).

-austin
-- 
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
               * Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca