From: Daniel Berger <djberge@...>
Date: 2002-11-28T01:34:56+09:00
Subject: Re: ranges and the 'times' method

ts wrote:

> >>>>> "D" == Daniel Berger <djberge@qwest.com> writes:
>
> D> 1) Should 'times' be modified to support ranges?
>
>  Well, you want #upto no ?

Yes, I realize that.  I was just making a point. :)

>
>
> D> 2) If not, should it raise a NameError exception?
>
>  I've not understood why you want a NameError, #times return its argument
>
> Guy Decoux

Because 'times' should fail when called by an invalid type (in this case a
Range object).  Ruby doesn't parse it that way it seems - I just thought it
should.

To answer you and the others who posted:  I understand *why* it's doing what
it does - I'm just wondering if the behavior should (or could) be changed.

>Javier Fontan wrote:
>(3..5).times { puts "yo" }

Actually, this syntactic approach *does* cause a NameError. :)

Regards,

Dan