From: Todd Benson <caduceass@...>
Date: 2007-11-21T18:17:59+09:00
Subject: Re: Open-ended ranges?

On Nov 21, 2007 2:52 AM, Todd Benson <caduceass@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 19, 2007 9:13 AM, Yossef Mendelssohn <ymendel@pobox.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 19, 6:54 am, "Todd Benson" <caduce...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > What I don't understand is why so many people find an open-ended range
> > to be pointless. That is to say I do understand why --- because
> > they're set on iterating over the range --- but I don't understand why
> > they consider that to be the only use of a range.
>
> Well, I suppose for me it is sort of a weird use of the word Range.
> Maybe OpenInterval would work better?
>
> >
> > Everyone I've seen who's interested in this (myself included) is using
> > these ranges for another reason, to indicate a range of acceptable (or
> > maybe even unacceptable values). A range like 5..Infinity is not
> > intended for iteration, but for comparison.
>
> 5..Infinity is not 5..nil.  I think it's also not a
> 5..some_number_to_be_determined_in_the_future.  I guess that's the
> point I was trying to make.  It violates the generic least common
> denominator practice present not only in the language, but also its

OK, this last bit sounds a little harsh because I didn't clarify that
the least denominator thing is actually a benefit.

My first post sort of showed how you could use array indices as open
number ranges.  Maybe, we could use a class word Interval instead of
OpenInterval or Range?  I'll turn to whatever direction works for most
people, but I would like some semblance of a solid interval (i.e. left
and right sides).

Todd