[ruby-core:99590] [Ruby master Bug#17017] Range#max & Range#minmax incorrectly use Float end as max

[merch-redmine@jeremyevans.net]

Issue #17017 has been updated by jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans).


Dan0042 (Daniel DeLorme) wrote in #note-22:
> jeremyevans0 (Jeremy Evans) wrote in #note-18:
> > The behavior change in this issue is to fix an obvious bug, which is that `(1..2.1).max` returned `2.1` instead of `2`.
> 
> FWIW I consider the previous behavior correct. Intuitively I see `1..2.1` as a float range because one of the ends is a float. And so I expect `(1..2.1).max` to be equivalent to `(1.0..2.1).max`

`integer..float` is currently treated as a integer range in all other respects. For example:

```ruby
(1.0..2.1).to_a # TypeError (can't iterate from Float)
(1..2.1).to_a # => [1, 2]
```

So if we want to treat `integer..float` to be a float range, it will require changes far beyond `#max` and `#minmax`.

I think this is a fix for a bug/regression introduced in Ruby 1.9 due to an improper optimization:

```
$ ruby18 -ve 'p((1..2.1).max)'
ruby 1.8.7 (2013-06-27 patchlevel 374) [x86_64-openbsd]
2

$ ruby19 -ve 'p((1..2.1).max)'
ruby 1.9.3p551 (2014-11-13 revision 48407) [x86_64-openbsd]
2.1
```

----------------------------------------
Bug #17017: Range#max & Range#minmax incorrectly use Float end as max
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/17017#change-87067

* Author: sambostock (Sam Bostock)
* Status: Closed
* Priority: Normal
* ruby -v: ruby 2.8.0dev (2020-07-14T04:19:55Z master e60cd14d85) [x86_64-darwin17]
* Backport: 2.5: UNKNOWN, 2.6: UNKNOWN, 2.7: UNKNOWN
----------------------------------------
While continuing to add edge cases to [`Range#minmax` specs](https://github.com/ruby/spec/pull/777), I discovered the following bug:

```ruby
(1..3.1).to_a        == [1, 2, 3] # As expected

(1..3.1).to_a.max    == 3         # As expected
(1..3.1).to_a.minmax == [1, 3]    # As expected

(1..3.1).max    == 3.1            # Should be 3, as above
(1..3.1).minmax == [1, 3.1]       # Should be [1, 3], as above
```

One way to detect this scenario might be to do (whatever the C equivalent is of)

```ruby
range_end.is_a?(Numeric)                      // Is this a numeric range?
  && (range_end - range_begin).modulo(1) == 0 // Can we reach the range_end using the standard step size (1)
```

As for how to handle it, a couple options come to mind:

- We could error out and do something similar to what we do for exclusive ranges

```ruby
raise TypeError, 'cannot exclude non Integer end value'
```

- We might be able to calculate the range end by doing something like

```ruby
num_steps = (range_end / range_beg).to_i - 1 # one fewer steps than would exceed the range_end
max = range_beg + num_steps                  # take that many steps all at once
```

- We could delegate to `super` and enumerate the range to find the max

```ruby
super
```

- We could update the documentation to define the max for this case as the `range_end`, similarly to how the documentation for `include?` says it behaves like `cover?` for numeric ranges.



-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/