Issue #17637 has been updated by marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune).


It's not clear what you are proposing. If it is to restore previous behavior, this won't be acceptable because of compatibility.

Note: you should be using `size` (lazy), not `count` (typically exhaustive):

```ruby
(0..nil).size # => Infinity
(0..Float::INFINITY).size # => Infinity
```


----------------------------------------
Misc #17637: Endless ranges with `nil` boundary weird behavior
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17637#change-90463

* Author: gud (gud gud)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
----------------------------------------

Basically it's about this https://andycroll.com/ruby/watch-out-for-nils-in-ranges/

Since Ruby 2.6 we have this weird syntax (0..nil) which is really really bug prone

e.g. we have dynamic upper boundary like

```
lower = 0
upper = some_method(arg1, arg2)

(lower..upper).each do { |s| some_method2(s) }
```

We rarely do `nil` checks in Ruby so it's really easy to have Infinity loop in the end.
Previous Argument error was more intuitive since it throws exception instead of silently looping forever.

+ some additional strange behavior:

```
(0..nil).count
=> Infinity

(0..Float::INFINITY).count
=> hangs, I guess same infinity loop
```

Having explicit parameter `Float::INFINITY` (as in previous versions) looks more like a proper design instead of allowing `nil` as a valid parameter.

You may think of it as **I would like to have a range from 0 to nothing, what is it actually ?**
And I guess the answer is **Nothing**.
Fixing `(0..Float::INFINITY).count` this case it also important I believe.

Tested on `ruby 2.7.1p83`



-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request / ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>