Hi

In message "[ruby-talk:00439] Re: New feature for Ruby?"
    on 99/07/09, Clemens Hintze <c.hintze / gmx.net> writes:
>Wow, how many Japanese have learned German once? ;-) Now I know more
>Japanese be able to speak German (perhaps only a little bit) than I
>know Germans being able to speak Japanese. :-)

Many students in department of technology take either German or
French as a compulsory subject. But I can't read any German matters
without Dictionary. Farthermore, I can't even ask time in German :-(

>Not only reminds `Sequence' me as "... descrete series, i.e.,
>enumerable and one dimensional.", but also it seems to imply a
>direction (up or down).

Yes! I missed saying but it is important for the current problem. As
you say, a sequence naturally has its direction. Generaly speaking, a
sequence is indexed with integers. So, I agree that one of your needs
Sequence#[] is very reasonable. 

>To not repeat that sat feeling, I tend to repeat my opinion over and
>over again, until a decision is made AND reasons are clear and logical
>for me (if the decision was `no', where I hope it was `yes', of
>course) ;-)

I think this style is very nice :-) I wanna be not afraid to repeat
my opinion too. 

>>supported.  I use mathematics to name in many case because just I do
>>not have the sense of word in English. I'm not intending ``the world,
>>be logical'' :-)
>
>Whereas I feel that you're right, but it seems most in the computing
>world is not mathematic, for good or for bad. :-)

It sounds significant!  I've considered that the computer science is
not mathematics but a experimental science in wide sense.  One of
reasons why I use ruby is to know what OO world is.

>I already have recognized that. But I want that feature for Floats and
>others too. I dont like, that I have to choose Integer#step,
>String#upto and <class>#<whatever> to perfrom nearly the same task. So
>I would insist of adapting class Range or write a new class Sequence.

I see!

>Saying esoteric, I mean that I have to use different ways to archieve
>the same goal with different kind of classes :-)

Thanks for explanation.

>>By the way, I introduce tips to redefine `new' here.  You can use it
>>in order to modify the Range to have some properties (e.g., stepsize)
>>by specifying them as options.
>
>Sorry! I don't very like it (the solution, not your trick ;-). It
>would also modify Range, but would not introduce all of the features
>I want. If we decide to touch class Range, I would like to let Range
>behave like current class Interval.

Perhaps I understand what you want.  I'll continue more discussion 
as a reply to ruby-talk:00442. 

>I would code it in C. That would make it a cleaner solution. What
>do you think?

I agree half; But a ruby code is more portable than a C mode :-)

-- gotoken