Foreach Range Statement

[Bill Baxter]

Sean Kelly wrote:
> Reiner Pope wrote:
>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>>> Don Clugston wrote:
>>>> I think the convention "first_element .. last_element+1" cannot be 
>>>> extended to negative and floating-point numbers without creating an 
>>>> inconsistency. Which is quite unfortunate.
>>
>> I'm not sure of the problem with negative integers is. Even for 
>> negative integers x, the identity still holds, that the following two 
>> expressions are equivalent:
>>
>>      a <= x
>>      a <  x+1
>>
>> But the floating point issue is a bummer. And it's also a bit silly 
>> for chars. To test whether c is a digit, you would have to write:
>>
>>    c in ['0'..'9'+1]
>>
>> which looks a little silly.
> 
> Perhaps there should be an operator for inclusive vs. exclusive ranges. 
>  Something like:
> 
> c in ['0' -> '9']
> 
> Not ideal, I know.
> 
> 
> Sean

In previous discussion it was mentioned that Ruby has a..b and a...b as 
inclusive and exclusive ranges, respectively.  The previous thread also 
threw around a lot of possible alternative syntaxes.

--bb