Issue #15745 has been updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh).


Eregon (Benoit Daloze) wrote:
> Yes, I think it's a possibility and is rather consistent.

Agreed, it is the most consistent.  IMHO, `p (1..) #=> 1..nil` is a bit verbose, though.

I think that an endless range will be much more commonly used than a beginless one because an endless range has many use cases but a beginless range has only one use case (DSL-like usage).  Thus, I liked to make an endless one more useful and implemented the current behavior.

But I admit that the current behavior looks inconsistent.  I have no strong opinion.  I'll hear other committers' opinions at the next dev meeting.

----------------------------------------
Bug #15745: There is no symmetry in the beginless range and the endless range using `Range#inspect`
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/15745#change-77809

* Author: koic (Koichi ITO)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: 
* Target version: 
* ruby -v: ruby 2.7.0dev (2019-04-03 trunk 67423) [x86_64-darwin17]
* Backport: 2.4: UNKNOWN, 2.5: UNKNOWN, 2.6: UNKNOWN
----------------------------------------
The following commit introduces beginless range.
https://github.com/ruby/ruby/commit/95f7992b89efd35de6b28ac095c4d3477019c583

```
% ruby -v
ruby 2.7.0dev (2019-04-03 trunk 67423) [x86_64-darwin17]
```

There is no symmetry with endless range when using `Range#inspect` method.

```
(1..).inspect # => "1.."
(..5).inspect # => "nil..5"
```

How about unifying whether it represents `nil`?




-- 
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>