From: mame@ruby-lang.org
To: ruby-core@ruby-lang.org
Subject: [ruby-core:92499] [Ruby trunk Bug#15745] There is no symmetry in the beginless range and the endless range using `Range#inspect`
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2019 16:02:30 +0000 (UTC) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <redmine.journal-77860.20190430160211.90446eaeec298f9f@ruby-lang.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: redmine.issue-15745.20190403093730@ruby-lang.org
Issue #15745 has been updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh).
I think we digress. I had no intention to discuss a beginless range itself, but maybe it started digressing. My apologies. Let's focus on the original topic in this ticket.
Do you think which is the best?
(0) Keep the current behavior: `p (1..) #=> (1..)`, `p (..1) #=> (nil..1)`, and `p (nil..nil) #=> (nil..)`.
(1) Make all cases explicit: `p (1..) #=> (1..nil)`, `p (..1) #=> (nil..1)`, and `p (nil..nil) #=> (nil..nil)`.
(2) Omit all `nil`s except `(nil..nil)`: `p (1..) #=> (1..)`, `p (..1) #=> (..1)`, and `p (nil..nil) #=> (nil..nil)`.
I have no strong opinion. (Honestly, I'm not so interested in the result of `inspect` in this case.) But if I have to choose, my current opinion is (0).
* (0) is somewhat reasonable for me.
* (1) looks a bit verbose to me (and brings tiny incompatibility).
* I don't like (2) because of the special handling.
Let me know your opinions. I'll bring them to the next dev meeting and ask matz decide.
----------------------------------------
Bug #15745: There is no symmetry in the beginless range and the endless range using `Range#inspect`
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/15745#change-77860
* Author: koic (Koichi ITO)
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee:
* Target version:
* ruby -v: ruby 2.7.0dev (2019-04-03 trunk 67423) [x86_64-darwin17]
* Backport: 2.4: UNKNOWN, 2.5: UNKNOWN, 2.6: UNKNOWN
----------------------------------------
The following commit introduces beginless range.
https://github.com/ruby/ruby/commit/95f7992b89efd35de6b28ac095c4d3477019c583
```
% ruby -v
ruby 2.7.0dev (2019-04-03 trunk 67423) [x86_64-darwin17]
```
There is no symmetry with endless range when using `Range#inspect` method.
```
(1..).inspect # => "1.."
(..5).inspect # => "nil..5"
```
How about unifying whether it represents `nil`?
--
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-04-30 16:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <redmine.issue-15745.20190403093730@ruby-lang.org>
2019-04-03 9:37 ` [ruby-core:92124] [Ruby trunk Bug#15745] There is no symmetry in the beginless range and the endless range using `Range#inspect` koic.ito
2019-04-26 8:04 ` [ruby-core:92417] " mame
2019-04-27 20:50 ` [ruby-core:92448] " eregontp
2019-04-27 22:24 ` [ruby-core:92449] " mame
2019-04-28 11:42 ` [ruby-core:92458] " eregontp
2019-04-28 12:17 ` [ruby-core:92460] " mame
2019-04-28 21:03 ` [ruby-core:92469] " eregontp
2019-04-29 0:05 ` [ruby-core:92470] " mame
2019-04-29 10:34 ` [ruby-core:92474] " zverok.offline
2019-04-30 16:02 ` mame [this message]
2019-04-30 16:41 ` [ruby-core:92501] " zverok.offline
2019-04-30 17:06 ` [ruby-core:92502] " mame
2019-04-30 17:22 ` [ruby-core:92503] " zverok.offline
2019-04-30 21:20 ` [ruby-core:92504] " eregontp
2019-05-22 4:50 ` [ruby-core:92755] " matz
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-list from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/community/mailing-lists/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=redmine.journal-77860.20190430160211.90446eaeec298f9f@ruby-lang.org \
--to=ruby-core@ruby-lang.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).