No, those methods work perfectly. The behaviour of String is the problem  
here.

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 23:46:26 +0100, J. Ryan Sobol <ryansobol / gmail.com>  
wrote:

> The rdoc needs to be updated for Range#include? and Range#member? then.
>
> ~ ryan ~
>
>
> On Jan 13, 2006, at 5:13 PM, David Vallner wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 23:00:37 +0100, James Edward Gray II  
>> <james / grayproductions.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 13, 2006, at 3:58 PM, David Vallner wrote:
>>>
>>>> You could possibly hack around that in Range code to provide for data  
>>>> types where generating successors is inconsistent with comparison,  
>>>> but I wouldn't like to see that.
>>>
>>> It's not too tough in this case:
>>>
>>>  >> ("1".."10").to_a.include?("2")
>>> => true
>>>
>>> James Edward Gray II
>>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, that always works, but it beats the point of having first class  
>> ranges as opposed to just having a pythonesque range function in the  
>> first place. I'd personally rather coerce the strings to numbers if I  
>> know they represent such to get more type safety and possibly some  
>> execution speed too.
>>
>> David Vallner
>>
>
>