From: "Ara.T.Howard" <ara.t.howard@...>
Date: 2005-11-25T05:22:26+09:00
Subject: Re: [BUG] string range membership

On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, daz wrote:

>
> Ara.T.Howard wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> All we need is making up good names for each functionality.
>>
>>    Range#contains?
>>
>> ??
>>
>
>
> I'm sure there was an earlier post with an excellent
> synopsis on ranges which stated that a Range /doesn't/
> "contain"?  Yeh, here it is ... from you ;))
>
> http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/167200
>
>  "not quite - we have a string range that __produces__
>   27 elements.  it does not 'have' or 'contain' them.
>   it merely suggests this set as it's current thought"
>
> (SCNR ;)
>
>
> Would something like Range#covers? be more apt?
> (meaning within the bounds).
> Oh, pooh, that's got an 's' on the end as well :(

lol.  i realized that actually - i thought that the confusion with "include?"
being used to test "containment" might be resolved by having a method actually
named "contains?".  ;-)

too confusing?

-a
-- 
===============================================================================
| ara [dot] t [dot] howard [at] noaa [dot] gov
| all happiness comes from the desire for others to be happy.  all misery
| comes from the desire for oneself to be happy.
| -- bodhicaryavatara
===============================================================================