[JOIN] Range syntax & Solitare cypher

[Markus]

Here's a simple example of where ... is very nice to have. You want to
cut a deck and card x, so that x is on the top after the cut:

deck = deck.values(x..-1,0...x)

*grin* Try doing that as concisely without "..."

-- MarkusQ

 

[gabriele renzi]

Markus ha scritto:

Here's a simple example of where ... is very nice to have. You want to
cut a deck and card x, so that x is on the top after the cut:

deck = deck.values(x..-1,0...x)

*grin* Try doing that as concisely without "..."

with my syntax:
x..,0..x-1

one key less
(though now I see a reason for excluding ranges)

 

[Zach Dennis]

Here's a simple example of where ... is very nice to have. You want to
cut a deck and card x, so that x is on the top after the cut:

deck = deck.values(x..-1,0...x)

*grin* Try doing that as concisely without "..."

-- MarkusQ

deck = deck.values(x..-1,0..x-1)

Zach

 

[markus]

deck = deck.values(x..-1,0..x-1)

Nope. Sorry. Try it with:

deck = (1..52).to_a
x = deck.index(1)

(or just a deck from 1..10 if you prefer) and then try again.

-- MarkusQ

P.S. I repeat, a...b is NOT a synonym for a..b-1

 

[markus]

Oops. Should be "values_at" in both cases. "values" is a site-local
synonym.

-- MarkusQ

 

[Kristof Bastiaensen]

Nope. Sorry. Try it with:

deck = (1..52).to_a
x = deck.index(1)

(or just a deck from 1..10 if you prefer) and then try again.

-- MarkusQ

P.S. I repeat, a...b is NOT a synonym for a..b-1

Exactly.

(3..5-1).include? 4.4 #=> false
(3...5).include? 4.4 #=> true

KB

 

[Markus]

Exactly.

(3..5-1).include? 4.4 #=> false
(3...5).include? 4.4 #=> true

Agreed. But that's not the only difference. The idiom above
relies on another difference to function properly. I'm surprised no one
has jumped on it yet. (Especially after all the talk about "..." not
being useful. *evil grin* You'd think one of them could show me how
unneeded it is in this context).

-- MarkusQ