T
trans. (T. Onoma)
Er...
How do I change the end exclusivity of a pre-existing range?
T.
How do I change the end exclusivity of a pre-existing range?
T.
F
Florian Gross
trans. (T. Onoma) said:
In theory this is impossible because Ranges are designed to be immutable
objects.
For other objects it is possible to change them via .send
initialize),but Ranges have a check for that.
I think the only option would be using evil-ruby, for now.
But why do you need this?
Regards,
Florian Gross
T
trans. (T. Onoma)
| > How do I change the end exclusivity of a pre-existing range?
|
| In theory this is impossible because Ranges are designed to be immutable
| objects.
|
| For other objects it is possible to change them via .sendinitialize),
| but Ranges have a check for that.
|
| I think the only option would be using evil-ruby, for now.
|
| But why do you need this?
Testing some modifications to Range. One of them is the addition of
exclude_first? Then I wanted to try out this alternate notation:
-(0..9) # exclude end
+(0..9) # exclude first
~(0..9) # exclude both
Using unary operators, since they have no other meaning for ranges anyway.
Have a few other interesting changes, as well. It took a while, but it's
beginning to look quite nice --a good bit more flexible then the current
Range class.
T.
P.S. You may also notice why I'm concerned with precedence, too.
|
| In theory this is impossible because Ranges are designed to be immutable
| objects.
|
| For other objects it is possible to change them via .send
initialize),| but Ranges have a check for that.
|
| I think the only option would be using evil-ruby, for now.
|
| But why do you need this?
Testing some modifications to Range. One of them is the addition of
exclude_first? Then I wanted to try out this alternate notation:
-(0..9) # exclude end
+(0..9) # exclude first
~(0..9) # exclude both
Using unary operators, since they have no other meaning for ranges anyway.
Have a few other interesting changes, as well. It took a while, but it's
beginning to look quite nice --a good bit more flexible then the current
Range class.
T.
P.S. You may also notice why I'm concerned with precedence, too.
J
Jamis Buck
trans. (T. Onoma) said:| > How do I change the end exclusivity of a pre-existing range?
|
| In theory this is impossible because Ranges are designed to be immutable
| objects.
|
| For other objects it is possible to change them via .send
| but Ranges have a check for that.
|
| I think the only option would be using evil-ruby, for now.
|
| But why do you need this?
Testing some modifications to Range. One of them is the addition of
exclude_first? Then I wanted to try out this alternate notation:
-(0..9) # exclude end
+(0..9) # exclude first
~(0..9) # exclude both
Using unary operators, since they have no other meaning for ranges anyway.
Interesting approach! That's rather novel. Thanks for sharing.
- Jamis
G
Gavin Sinclair
Perhaps you can't. Can you change anything else about a pre-existing
range? I'm intentionally not polluting my response by looking at the
docs. If I were to write a Range class from scratch, it would be
read-only.
So the answer to your question _would_ be: create a new range
Gavin
M
Mark Hubbart
On Sunday 10 October 2004 10:34 pm, Florian Gross wrote:
| trans. (T. Onoma) wrote:
| > How do I change the end exclusivity of a pre-existing range?
|
| In theory this is impossible because Ranges are designed to be immutable
| objects.
|
| For other objects it is possible to change them via .send
| but Ranges have a check for that.
|
| I think the only option would be using evil-ruby, for now.
|
| But why do you need this?
Testing some modifications to Range. One of them is the addition of
exclude_first? Then I wanted to try out this alternate notation:
-(0..9) # exclude end
+(0..9) # exclude first
~(0..9) # exclude both
Using unary operators, since they have no other meaning for ranges anyway.
Have a few other interesting changes, as well. It took a while, but it's
beginning to look quite nice --a good bit more flexible then the current
Range class.
T.
P.S. You may also notice why I'm concerned with precedence, too.
Fascinating!! A bit esoteric, but pretty elegant nonetheless...
As for modifying the range, are you sure you want to? Maybe consider
just creating a new one. I suspect that someone might be surprised if
they do something like this:
rng = (0..5)
p -rng
... and later find that their range was modified in place. Less
surprising would be for it to return a new range with the
exclusive_end flag set to true.
cheers,
Mark
T
trans. (T. Onoma)
create a new range
Doh! Of course, that is best idea. Mark said same thing.
Thanks guys!
T.
Doh! Of course, that is best idea. Mark said same thing.
Thanks guys!
T.
T
trans. (T. Onoma)
|
| As for modifying the range, are you sure you want to? Maybe consider
| just creating a new one. I suspect that someone might be surprised if
| they do something like this:
|
| rng = (0..5)
| p -rng
|
| ... and later find that their range was modified in place. Less
| surprising would be for it to return a new range with the
| exclusive_end flag set to true.
Just occurred to me: Does that mean range is Multiton, like Symbol ?
T.
| As for modifying the range, are you sure you want to? Maybe consider
| just creating a new one. I suspect that someone might be surprised if
| they do something like this:
|
| rng = (0..5)
| p -rng
|
| ... and later find that their range was modified in place. Less
| surprising would be for it to return a new range with the
| exclusive_end flag set to true.
Just occurred to me: Does that mean range is Multiton, like Symbol ?
T.