. @steveklabnik re `...` for inclusive; you cool with it being diff from Ruby? `(0..10).cover? 10 => true`; `(0...10).cover? 10 => false`
-
-
Replying to @JakeGoulding
that is, i wish that we could go back and make them identical, but I am more okay with diff from ruby than i am ..=
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @steveklabnik @JakeGoulding
I don't know the history behind them, but I generally dislike exclusive ranges; they just add mental overhead
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @seanlinsley @steveklabnik
I think any "history" is due to ye olde C's `for (i = 0; i < 10; i++)`, which translates to `for i in 0..10`.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Mostly that `< 10` was more common than `<= 10` due to zero-based indexing.
11:21 AM - 16 Mar 2017
0 replies
0 retweets
1 like
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.