From: Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...>
Date: 2005-11-24T12:40:57+09:00
Subject: Re: string range membership

Hi,

In message "Re: string range membership"
    on Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:07:26 +0900, "Trans" <transfire@gmail.com> writes:

|> All we need is making up good names for each functionality.
|
|That is NOT all you need! This does not solve the complete problem, but
|only provides a little-bitty patch for query on a Range member, and a
|very inefficient one at that --which I thought was part of the reason
|you changed #include and #member to be the same in the first place.

Depends on how you define problem.

|The overarching issue is that sortable and comparable are using the
|same method #<=>, but they do not neccessarily want the same meaning.
|You should provide a separate method for comparable --like I said, in
|most cases they will be equivalent, but not so in String. And
|dictionary order comparion is needed anyway. I studied this issue
|exahustively over a year ago when I wrote a true Interval class.

I'm not sure what you meant here.  Range has no relation with
sorting.  Can you elaborate?

							matz.