From: Brian Candler <B.Candler@...>
Date: 2004-10-10T03:34:54+09:00
Subject: Re: Range behavior (Re: [RCR] New [] Semantics)

On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 02:30:51AM +0900, trans.  (T. Onoma) wrote:
> On Saturday 09 October 2004 01:14 pm, James Edward Gray II wrote:
> | On Oct 9, 2004, at 7:07 AM, Brian Candler wrote:
> | > I agree with Matz - Range#member? is not very useful. For the
> | > occasional
> | > case where you might need such semantics, it's easy enough to code up
> | > your
> | > own object which behaves how you want.
> |
> | Or just use:
> |
> | (3..5).to_a.include?(4)
> 
> Note that this won't work for 
> 
>   Inf = 1.0/0
>   (3..Inf).to_a.include?(5)

But that's unlikely to be useful anyway, even with the current member?
syntax, since it either returns true or hangs in an infinite loop:

    (3..Inf).member?(1)

[Actually Ruby hangs in an infinite loop even if the value is found, but
Matz has acknowledged that as a bug]

Regards,

Brian.