From: Trans <transfire@...>
Date: 2005-12-01T13:27:30+09:00
Subject: Re: string range membership

> In closing:
>        ('1'..'10').to_a.member?('2')
>        => true
>
> Is that really such a big deal?

This is but one common instance. The issue extends beyond this. Range
is constrained by exceptional behaviors such that it can't be used more
creatively in an assured functioning manner. For instance, youd expect
#member? to do what the documentation says it does. If it not going to
do that the documentation ought to be changed. Why hasn't it? Becuase
Range has a great deal of exceptional behavior for the sake of
efficency. Documenting the actual behavior would be too complicated.

Given the current implementation of Range and how it is used (or more
percisely, how it can't be used), and since there is clearly no intetn
to do otherwise, it just doesn't make sense to push it as some sort of
generalized component. Might as well give Range all the knowledge it
needs to do its basic job and forget this "mixin nature" altogether
(i.e. #succ and #<=> of the sentinals). Finish coding Range to know
what an numeric sequence is and what a string sequence is and forget
about it (If you've ever looked at the code you know it's half way
there anyway). At least it would be even more efficient then.

T.