On 10/9/2004 4:28 AM, Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> In message "Re: Range behavior (Re: [RCR] New [] Semantics)"
>     on Fri, 8 Oct 2004 22:43:52 +0900, "trans.  (T. Onoma)" <transami / runbox.com> writes:
> 
> ||   planA - leave member? and include? as they are; they are very easy
> ||           to distinguish, and to remember.  why bother?
> ||
> ||   planB - making member? as alias to include?; they behave same.  no
> ||           confusion, no problem.  who wants membership for ranges?
> 
> |Okay, planB is good. You are going the other way toward Range being 
> |continuous.
> 
> OK.  I will consider taking planB in the future.

FWIW, I respectfully disagree.

irb(main):001:0> (1..5).each {|i| puts i}
1
2
3
4
5
=> 1..5

The range 1..5 above is an ordered Set that contains 5 elements.

The behavior of:

irb(main):002:0> (1..5).include?( 2.5 )
=> true

was a complete suprise to me. It goes against the expectations created 
by the first example above.

Thanks for your consideration. I will now sit down and shutup.
Randy.