From: George Ogata <g_ogata@...>
Date: 2006-03-12T16:28:44+09:00
Subject: Re: unexpected behavior of range.each (Newbie extreme)

Joe Percival <bttman@bigtreestech.com> writes:

> seems like an odd definition of "include" (and "each") and inconsistent 
> with the behavior for arrays.  Also, if (9..5) is not a valid range 
> specification why no error message?

You can't error on construction simply because end < start.  Consider:

  str[2..-1]

> It seems to me that the definition of include (and each) for a range 
> could be made a bit more tollerant of direction by making it conditional 
> on the order of the endpoints.  Ahh...Well... guess I ought to stop 
> complaining and just go back to learning the language :-)

You could make Ranges go backwards, but that changes the soul of the
ruby Range.  (Confusion and code breakage everywhere.)  I think having
backwards ranges do nothing can also have its uses, though I can't
conjure up a convincing one on the spot.