I agree.  Having a separate operator for exclusive ranges just
complicates things.  Why not just have '..' and the user can specify
either start..end or start..(end + 1) ?

Bill Atkins


On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 23:25:02 +0900, gabriele renzi
<rff_rff / remove-yahoo.it> wrote:
> Zach Dennis ha scritto:
> 
> > How range operators work seems sort of backwards to me. It would appear
> > as if the "..." (three dots) would be the inclusive one, including the
> > last value and the ".." (two dots) would be exclusive and exclude the
> > last value.
> 
> actually, I thought till one moment ago that ... was going to be
> deprecated. I looked up and found that I misremembered this:
> http://www.rubyist.net/~matz/slides/rc2003/mgp00025.html
> 
> I'd strongly advocate the elimination of z...y .
> It is completely non obvious, and it has no advantage _i can see_ over
> x..k .
> 
> Maybe you can submit an rcr about it, you'll get many positive votes, I
> guess.
> 
> PS
> I also think that if x...k disappear we could have an x.. literal,
> (equivalent to x..-1 to express unlimited Ranges) without ambiguity.
> 
> I would love to have :
> 'ciao'[1..]=='iao' #=>true
> instead of
> 'ciao'[1..-1]=='iao' #=>true
> 
>