Issue #15745 has been updated by zverok (Victor Shepelev).


> I'd like to avoid "don't care". Even if we don't care, we need to choose one of them.

Yes, but from my perspective, the whole choice (being it a further discussion, simple voting, Matz's decision) is only about "how the `nil..nil` is represented", while representation of `1..` and `..1` should be just this: `1..` and `..1`. 

TBH, for even for `nil..nil` it is hard to imagine reasons for representation other than `..` (following the logic described above), only if just "aestetics"?..

----------------------------------------
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-77864

* 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>