From: Robert Dober <robert.dober@...>
Date: 2007-05-30T20:54:52+09:00
Subject: Re: True arity

On 5/30/07, Daniel DeLorme <dan-ml@dan42.com> wrote:
> Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:
> > I guess the question would be whether this is useful enough information
> > to warrant a semantic change in "arity" representation.
>
> It can be useful in some cases and it is *certainly* cleaner than the
> wondrous hack that is a negative arity, but I'm never very fond of
> backwards compatibility breakage. I'd be more in favor of introducing a
> new method (e.g. 'arityrange') that would return a Range object. (please
> pretty please mr. core developpers)
>
> IMHO, Range objects are underused. MatchData#offset would be so much
> nicer if it returned (a...b) instead of [a,b]
>
> just my 2�
that is clever Daniel ;)

but seriously I just wanted to backup your idea which seems pretty
good, what about an RCR?
And yes, by all means, use a range, look at this pretty idiom which would result

raise ArgumentError unless method.arityrange === n

Cheers
Robert
>
> Daniel
>
>


-- 
You see things; and you say Why?
But I dream things that never were; and I say Why not?
-- George Bernard Shaw