------art_233047_4934534.1148910087384
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 5/29/06, Ryan Leavengood <leavengood / gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Just an FYI, this general topic of ranges and strings has been
> discussed extensively in the recent past:
>
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/browse_thread/thread/cfc720a7a0313323/9d17db883a1d6100
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/browse_thread/thread/2d6a59a136abce3d/ccf66936477e73a7
>
> Ryan
>
> Sorry if my confused post did not help to pass my point, thx also for the
pointer.
It seems to me, and that is eventually a clear statement from my side ;),
that this needs more discussion.
Please kindly try to forget what I have written sofar - because of the noise
- and evaluate the following statement.

It is bad that Range builds its behavior upon <=> and succ, because <=>nd
succ are not designed (not always at least) to work together for that
purpose.
I conclude from Matz' post that this confusion could be clarified by
redesigning Range to be build on a contract that does not interfere with
other contracts. Changing the paradigme.

I am well aware that such a redesign might have more impacts ( for logical
compatibility with the Enumerable mixin f.i.) than one might think of at
first sight but the OP's confusion and the previous discussion make it quite
clear to me...

Thanks for listinening.

Robert


-- 
Deux choses sont infinies : l'univers et la bóŐise humaine ; en ce qui
concerne l'univers, je n'en ai pas acquis la certitude absolue.

- Albert Einstein

------art_233047_4934534.1148910087384--