Max Muermann wrote: > On 8/27/06, Henry Savr <hsavr / yahoo.com> wrote: >> Thank you, guys for trying to fix the code. Sure, I had 1001 way to fix >> it and I did. >> The reason for the post was to inform community about the case. For me >> with a long dinosaur's tail of various languages it is unexpectable yet, >> however I could understand the logic behind it. >> >> Is it a bug or feature, I do not know. At least it was something, people >> should know ;-) > > It was a bug in your code. You used [0..value] when you should have > used (0..value). > > Cheers, > Max Why, The Programming Ruby suggests using *for* for Array. Unfortunately I don't have the book with me. I will tell you the page. And it is logical to use it for array. Cheers, Henry -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.