[#407] New feature for Ruby? — Clemens.Hintze@...

Hi all,

27 messages 1999/07/01
[#413] Re: New feature for Ruby? — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 1999/07/01

Hi Clemens,

[#416] Re: New feature for Ruby? — Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...> 1999/07/01

On Thu, 01 Jul 1999, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#418] Re: New feature for Ruby? — gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro) 1999/07/01

Hi

[#426] Re: New feature for Ruby? — gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro) 1999/07/02

Hi,

[#440] Now another totally different ;-) — Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...>

Hi,

21 messages 1999/07/09
[#441] Re: Now another totally different ;-) — matz@... (Yukihiro Matsumoto) 1999/07/09

Hi,

[#442] Re: Now another totally different ;-) — Clemens Hintze <c.hintze@...> 1999/07/09

On Fri, 09 Jul 1999, you wrote:

[#443] — Michael Hohn <hohn@...>

Hello,

26 messages 1999/07/09
[#444] interactive ruby, debugger — gotoken@... (GOTO Kentaro) 1999/07/09

Hi Michael,

[ruby-talk:00408] Re: New feature for Ruby?

From: Julian R Fondren <julian@...>
Date: 1999-07-01 06:18:02 UTC
List: ruby-talk #408
> - Range::new(1, 9, -2) -- ERROR!
Perhaps you should try the latest version of ruby, the absolute value of
the third argument is used, and this works fine.

> The call "Range::new(1, 9)" or "Range::new(9, 1)" could also be
> written as "1..9" and "9..1" (perhaps we could have a global function
> "range" (like Python) which would instantiate Ranges via Range::new?).
This is already true.
``for x in 1..9; print "#{x}\n"; end'' works as expected

> Please let me know your opinion! Is that all silly, or would you also
> like such features?
I think that the features you have here (that do not already exist =)
could be useful; it seems as if you want to make Range objects look more
like lists without them actually being so.

In This Thread