From: "J. Ryan Sobol" <ryansobol@...>
Date: 2006-01-14T07:46:26+09:00
Subject: Re: Range#member? Oddity

The rdoc needs to be updated for Range#include? and Range#member? then.

~ ryan ~


On Jan 13, 2006, at 5:13 PM, David Vallner wrote:

> 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
>