Issue #15404 has been updated by kddeisz (Kevin Deisz).


Just want to add to this that 

``` ruby
Ripper.sexp("1..\n1..5")
```

breaks and returns nil


----------------------------------------
Bug #15404: Endless range has inconsistent chaining behaviour
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/15404#change-76597

* Author: valich (Valentin Fondaratov)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: 
* Target version: 
* ruby -v: ruby 2.6.0rc1 (2018-12-06 trunk 66253) [x86_64-linux]
* Backport: 2.4: UNKNOWN, 2.5: UNKNOWN
----------------------------------------
Everything below is tested on `Ruby 2.6.0-rc1`. Particular sexp column coordinates are wrong because I've had some leading spaces in the file, sorry.

## The essence of the bug

Syntactically, chaining normal ranges is prohibited. For example,
`(1..1)..1` produces the following sexp output:
```
[:program,
 [[:dot2,
   [:paren, [[:dot2, [:@int, "1", [1, 16]], [:@int, "1", [1, 19]]]]],
   [:@int, "1", [1, 23]]]]]
```
while
`1..1..1` is a syntax error (compiler output: `syntax error, unexpected ..`)

New endless ranges break this behaviour and allow chaining.
There are two bugs.

1.

Chaining is possible on one line:
`1.. ..1` is parsed as
```
[:program,
 [[:dot2, [:dot2, [:@int, "1", [1, 15]], nil], [:@int, "1", [1, 21]]]]]
```
I think this is inconsistent compared to the previous case.

2.

Chaining works even with newline between two parts:
```
1..
..1
```
```
[:program,
 [[:dot2, [:dot2, [:@int, "1", [1, 15]], nil], [:@int, "1", [2, 17]]]]]
```

This behaviour is completely counterintuitive because `1..` on the first line is a complete statement. Even if it continues to the next line with the search for the right part of expression (end range), it should break because `..1` is not a syntactically valid range end. So, in the search for the end range parser decides to complete the first range and use it as a beginning. It contradicts older
```
1
..2
```
behaviour which effectively meant that a range could not be continued to the next line.

## Why it's important

All the code above will break on runtime because it leads to `bad value for range (ArgumentError)`. However, if the code is located in some method (or branch) which is executed rarely, developer might miss the problem.



-- 
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>