OK. You got my point.
And your explanation seems logic to me.
Thanks.

Anyway, I still feel this is very strange...
"a"[-1..-2] #=> ""
""[-1..-2] #=> nil

My Conclusion is : For any no empty string, it exists exactly string's 
length + 1 of empty substring!
(location does matter)

Example: for "ab", there are exactly 3 empty substrings locate at "^a^b^"  
(^ shows empty string position)

s="ab"; s[-1..-2]="xxx"; p s   #==> s = "axxxb"
s="ab"; s[-2..-3]="xxx"; p s   #==> s = "xxxab"
s="ab"; s[1..0]="xxx"; p s     #==> s = "axxxb", it is the same as s[-1..-2]
s="ab"; s[2..1]="xxx"; p s     #==> s = "abxxx"

As you can see, there are exactly 3 empty substrings on "ab". (and you can 
re-assing)  ;-)

cheer.

>Hi, Ara!
>
>I understand what you mean.
>However, the return values should be consistent even if the range object
>doesn't make sense.
>
> > > s[-1..-2]    #=> ""
> > > s[-1..-3]    #=> nil
>How would you explain the inconsistency?
>
>The only explanation I can think of is:
>
>s[-1..-1] #=>"9"
>s[-1..-2] #=>"", because one step back, one less character...
>s[-1..-3] #=>nil, because there's no "less character" concept beyond empty
>string.
>
>Sam
>

_________________________________________________________________
DonÃÕ just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/