```Issue #8842 has been updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh).

Target version changed from next minor to current: 2.1.0

> I take it that the use of '&&' operator in the first 2 corner cases is a typo.

Yes, sorry.

> in the 4th corner case, why 15[-3..Float::INFINITY] #=> 2 (equivalent to 1 << 3)?
> 1 << 3 is 8, and even if I assume a typo, 15 << 3 is 120. Is there something I misunderstood?

No, you are right.

> 15[-3..Float::INFINITY] #=> 120  (equivalent to 15 << 3)

is correct.

Also, the attached slide has a bug: n[2..6] should be n[2..5] or n[2...6].

I'm sorry.  Haste is from the devil.  I'll make a patch more carefully.

--
Yusuke Endoh <mame / tsg.ne.jp>
----------------------------------------
Feature #8842: Integer#[] with range
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/8842#change-41492

Author: mame (Yusuke Endoh)
Status: Assigned
Priority: Normal
Assignee: mame (Yusuke Endoh)
Category:
Target version: current: 2.1.0

=begin
I propose to extend Integer#[] accepting a range.

0b01001101[2, 4] == 0b0011
0bHGFEDCBA[2, 4] == 0bFEDC

== Use case

I believe that everyone has written a code like this:

if (n >> 2) & 0xf == 0x3
...
end

because this is a very common idiom in C.
But it is less readable, writable, extendable and optimizable.

if n[2, 4] == 0x3
...
end

is much better in the all aspects.

== Corner cases

The current Integer#[] (and shift operators) handle an integer as "a bit array with infinity length";
it returns 0 for any negative index and an (extended) sign bit for any index greater than MSB.
We also can use this standard to define the spec for a range argument.
For example:

15[-1, 42] #=> 30  (equivalent to (15 << 1) && (2 ** 42 - 1))
15[3, 42]  #=>  1  (equivalent to (15 >> 3) && (2 ** 42 - 1))
15[3..Float::INFINITY]  #=> 1  (equivalent to 15 >> 3)
15[-3..Float::INFINITY] #=> 2  (equivalent to 1 << 3)

-1[0..Float::INFINITY]   #=> -1
-1[1..Float::INFINITY]   #=> -1
-1[-1..Float::INFINITY]  #=> -2

1[-Float::INFINITY..0] #=> failed to allocate memory
2[-Float::INFINITY..0] #=> 0

Only tricky case that I thought of is a range (beg..end) whose "end" is smaller than "beg".
I think it should be handled as (beg..Float::INFINITY).

15[-3..-4] #=> 2  (equivalent to 1 << 3)
-1[0..-1] #=> -1
-1[0..-2] #=> -1

What do you think?
=end

--
http://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
```