From: "Brian Schröder" <ruby@...>
Date: 2004-09-30T23:32:28+09:00
Subject: Re: Range syntax theory

gabriele renzi wrote:
> Zach Dennis ha scritto:
> 
>> How range operators work seems sort of backwards to me. It would 
>> appear as if the "..." (three dots) would be the inclusive one, 
>> including the last value and the ".." (two dots) would be exclusive 
>> and exclude the last value.
> 
> 
> actually, I thought till one moment ago that ... was going to be 
> deprecated. I looked up and found that I misremembered this:
> http://www.rubyist.net/~matz/slides/rc2003/mgp00025.html
> 
> I'd strongly advocate the elimination of z...y .
> It is completely non obvious, and it has no advantage _i can see_ over 
> x..k .
> 
> 
> Maybe you can submit an rcr about it, you'll get many positive votes, I 
> guess.
> 
> PS
> I also think that if x...k disappear we could have an x.. literal, 
> (equivalent to x..-1 to express unlimited Ranges) without ambiguity.
> 
> I would love to have :
> 'ciao'[1..]=='iao' #=>true
> instead of
> 'ciao'[1..-1]=='iao' #=>true
> 

That is nice, but why does it conflict with having the ... operator?
I've used ... when I translated some algorithms from pseudocode in 
constructs like
for i = 0...n

I like that I don't have to write n-1. On the other hand that seems a 
bit cryptic (and we don't want to end up with perl like line noise ;)

And most for constructions can be better expressed by iterators/generators.

Anyhow. Why does your proposal conflict with  the ... operator?

Regards,

Brian
-- 
Brian Schr�der
http://ruby.brian-schroeder.de/