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/.