Morton Goldberg wrote:
> I don't want to rain on your parade, especially because I can't
> figure out why you're having a parade. I could understand a newbie
> being puzzled about this code (because he wrote [0 ... length] where
> he should used 0 ... length) and posting it so someone could explain
> why it works the way it does, but you say that's not your situation.
> Could you be more explicit about what amuses, delights, intrigues, or
> otherwise motivates you to bring this to our attention?
> 
> Regards, Morton

Well,
I bring it to your attention because:
It mentioned in Programming Ruby, that *for* works with array. They gave 
the example of song array. All languages, which I am familiar with work 
the same way. They
- take an item from Array,
- execute the block,
- and then take another item

So as [0 ... len] is a new Array, I expected the same behaviour.
But it was not so obvious. It took the whole array and executes the 
statement ones. I would expect this behaviour if the code were

for i = [0 ... len]

So, my question was to persons, who realy UNDERSTAND Ruby internal 
logic, what was it, a bug or undocumented (or may be documented, but I 
just missed it) feature?

Regards,
Henry

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.