From: "trans.  (T. Onoma)" <transami@...>
Date: 2004-10-10T01:56:34+09:00
Subject: Re: Range behavior (Re: [RCR] New [] Semantics)

On Saturday 09 October 2004 04:28 am, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
| Hi,
|
| In message "Re: Range behavior (Re: [RCR] New [] Semantics)"
|
|     on Fri, 8 Oct 2004 22:43:52 +0900, "trans.  (T. Onoma)" 
<transami@runbox.com> writes:
| ||   planA - leave member? and include? as they are; they are very easy
| ||           to distinguish, and to remember.  why bother?
| ||
| ||   planB - making member? as alias to include?; they behave same.  no
| ||           confusion, no problem.  who wants membership for ranges?
| |
| |Okay, planB is good. You are going the other way toward Range being
| |continuous.
|
| OK.  I will consider taking planB in the future.  Would somebody
| volunteer to update the RDoc in range.c if I change?

I will if no one else will --just some documentation changes, yes?

T.