From: Dave Howell <groups@...>
Date: 2005-12-01T09:02:03+09:00
Subject: Re: [BUG] string range membership

English speaker.

Relative new Ruby user.

My thoughts: forget it! Stop! Ahhhh! Kitchen sink!

Let's see if I've got this straight. Somebody complained because

	('1'..'10').member?('2')
	=> false


Good! The fact that Ruby will get incredibly clever with strings and 
fabricate arbitrary sequences with them is a charming trick, but they 
are arbitrary, and it is a trick.

The fact that '1', '2', ... '9','10'  is obvious doesn't make it any 
less arbitrary.

	'1'..'100'

Is that supposed to be 1, 2, 3, ... 99, 100 or 1, 10, 11, 100? Ruby 
arbitrarily decided to interpret those strings as base 10 integers.

	'a.1'..'c.3'

Quite honestly, I have absolutely no idea how Ruby would count that. 
Will I get 'a.1', 'a.2', 'a.3', 'b.1' ... or is it going to go all the 
way to 'a.9' and then start over with 'b.1'?

Ruby does NOT need more almost-but-not-quite-the-same methods! People 
sophisticated enough to require access to the subtle differences are 
sophisticated enough to fix them problem themselves, by modifying the 
necessary code, or by finding somebody else's recommended modification 
and using that.

Please. The tremendous ease with which Ruby can be extended is all the 
more reason to keep the core set tight, small, clean, and thus more 
comprehensible and more accessible to beginners. I can't even count how 
many different ways there are to open a file! I'd so much rather have 
one way, with one thorough explanation, and notes on its shortcomings, 
than seven, or whatever, each with just a sketchy description.

In closing:
	('1'..'10').to_a.member?('2')
	=> true

Is that really such a big deal?