> - Range::new(1, 9, -2) -- ERROR!
Perhaps you should try the latest version of ruby, the absolute value of
the third argument is used, and this works fine.

> The call "Range::new(1, 9)" or "Range::new(9, 1)" could also be
> written as "1..9" and "9..1" (perhaps we could have a global function
> "range" (like Python) which would instantiate Ranges via Range::new?).
This is already true.
``for x in 1..9; print "#{x}\n"; end'' works as expected

> Please let me know your opinion! Is that all silly, or would you also
> like such features?
I think that the features you have here (that do not already exist =)
could be useful; it seems as if you want to make Range objects look more
like lists without them actually being so.