From: Dave Howell <groups@...>
Date: 2005-12-01T19:53:39+09:00
Subject: Re: [BUG] string range membership


On Nov 30, 2005, at 22:59, Warren Brown wrote:

>
>    No, it's supposed to be '1', '2', '3', ... '99', '100'.  There is
> nothing arbitrary about the sequence, and it's not a trick.

I don't think you understand my use of "arbitrary." Ordering strings to 
correspond to their integers is absolutely arbitrary. As arbitrary as 
ordering them by ASCII value, or (as libraries do it) by the spelling 
of their pronounced forms. Integers have an inherent order. Strings do 
not.


>     Matz is also seeking comments from other people on these suggested
> names along with any other names that might be appropriate.

Yes. And my comment is that their very existence is detrimental to the 
language, promoting obscurity and the opportunity for confusion, and 
they should be scrapped, at least from the core. Ranges aren't arrays 
or integers; no small part of the problem stems from wanting to treat 
them as if they are.

Oh, well, I don't have to use them whatever they're called.