From: Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
Date: 2000-10-16T10:59:48+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:5556] Re: 2 ideas from Haskell

> matju considers:
> > skip(2) makes range call .succ.succ instead of .succ; but 
> > with skip(1000)
> > this may be an issue; so why not use .+ instead of .succ ? what about
> > negative skips, and how should they be handled?
> While you have pretty good idea here, don't forget that .succ is has been
> chosen so that you can go over strings and String.+ wouldn't be so useful

Ok, then let's define this:

class Object
	def succ_many(n)
		(1..n).inject(self) {|a,b| a.succ }
	end
end

(assuming that the faq's Enumerable#inject is in Ruby, which it should be,
and that the given object has succ defined.)

Then StepRange could use Object#succ_many, and any class may redefine it
for performance, e.g.

class Integer
	def succ_many(n)
		self+n
	end
end

> In any event, we shouldn't forget 
>   1.step(10,2) { |i| print i, " " }   #=> 1 3 5 7 9

Well, like for "for..in" and Integer#upto I don't care so much, and won't
bother using them, as Enumerable#each, Range#each, and StepRange#each
provide equivalent functionality.

matju