Sebastian Hungerecker wrote:
>
> a) Range is not a numeric
> b) Which difference do you mean?
> 
> HTH,
> Sebastian

Thanks for the reply!

I guess what I'm getting at is that the Ruby parser makes a lot of 
assumptions, when I write something like 1.class, the parser assumes I'm 
calling a method on the Fixnum 1 rather than assuming I'm trying to make 
some strange Float. And when I type 3.14.class the parser is again smart 
enough to figure things out, but this behavior is not carried over to 
range. I know it's a design choice, and that range needs to be able to 
hold more than just numerics, but since a statement like "range 1..'d'" 
is meaningless, it seems like the proper behavior for range should be to 
examine the first element of the range statement and then assume the 
second element is of the same type (at least as far as parsing method 
calls goes) then we would have (x..y).class == x..y.class which seems 
like it would be more in line with other basic data types...

Of course, in typing this out, I see why it's set up the way it is, 
since we might want to do something like this...

class SomeObj
        def lastOne()
                17
        end
end
blah = SomeObj::new
a = 1..blah.lastOne

Thanks for setting me on the path! (and letting me babble on...)

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