I point it out to people who I think may not have seen it before, just
so they don't think it a typo.

It doesn't really bother me, because I've gotten used to it.  And I
regularly make use of it, as deep as I am into C++ standard template
library practice.

Unit testing could catch some errors, but I do agree if something
reasonably simple could replace it syntax-wise, it might be a tad
better.  What that something simple is, I don't know...  The simplest
solution would be to use mathematical notation, but that would be a
pita for the compiler to parse:   [0..x)


On 3/17/06, Stephen Waits <steve / waits.net> wrote:
> Matthew Moss wrote:
> > deck = deck[x..-1] + deck[0...x]   # notice differing amounts of dots
>
> I find myself constantly pointing this out too.. is anyone else bothered
> by it?  Has Matz weighed in on this in the past?
>
> It seems error-prone to me.  Extraordinarily more error-prone than other
> "stuff" in Ruby.
>
> --Steve
>
>
>