From: Logan Capaldo <logancapaldo@...>
Date: 2006-01-15T06:54:16+09:00
Subject: Re: Range#member? Oddity

--Apple-Mail-1-54650762
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=US-ASCII;
	delsp=yes;
	format=flowed


On Jan 14, 2006, at 4:41 PM, ara.t.howard@noaa.gov wrote:

> in any case, ruby makes no guarantee that
>
>   (a..b).each{|x| p x}
>
> will complete, so even if we had real numbers that would still be a  
> valid
> construct - though mixing in Enumerable into Range would be strange  
> then - but
> it not the case.

Here's a thought, get rid of #each and Enumerable from Range, but add  
in a #to_enum method (no args) that would return an Enumerator for  
the range. This way programmers could say, "I solemnly swear that I  
know  iterating thru a range of strings doesn't make sense with  
include, but I want to do it anyway."

("ab".."xyz").to_enum.to_a # etc...

On second thought, that looks unnecessary.

How about:

% cat a.rb
("abc".."wxyz").to_a

% ruby -w a.rb
warning: You fool! By doing this you know include? will make no sense!

Maybe not.

Stupid ranges. Hmph.


--Apple-Mail-1-54650762--