From: David Vallner <david@...>
Date: 2006-01-14T07:13:52+09:00
Subject: Re: Range#member? Oddity

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 23:00:37 +0100, James Edward Gray II  
<james@grayproductions.net> wrote:

> On Jan 13, 2006, at 3:58 PM, David Vallner wrote:
>
>> You could possibly hack around that in Range code to provide for data  
>> types where generating successors is inconsistent with comparison, but  
>> I wouldn't like to see that.
>
> It's not too tough in this case:
>
>  >> ("1".."10").to_a.include?("2")
> => true
>
> James Edward Gray II
>


Yes, that always works, but it beats the point of having first class  
ranges as opposed to just having a pythonesque range function in the first  
place. I'd personally rather coerce the strings to numbers if I know they  
represent such to get more type safety and possibly some execution speed  
too.

David Vallner