Feature #15864
open
Proposal: Add methods to determine if it is an infinite range
Added by osyo (manga osyo) over 5 years ago.
Updated over 5 years ago.
Description
Summary¶
Proposal to add methods to determine if it is an infinite range.
Current status¶
# begin / end return nil
p (..10).begin # => nil
p (1..).end # => nil
# But, first / last raise an exception
p (..10).first # Error: in `first': cannot get the first element of beginless range (RangeError)
p (1..).last # Error: in `last': cannot get the last element of endless range (RangeError)
# Returns Infinity if it is a Numeric
p (1..10).size # => 10
p (1..).size # => Infinity
p (..1).size # => Infinity
# Otherwise returns nil
p ("a".."z").size # => nil
p ("a"..).size # => nil
p (.."z").size # => nil
-
(..10).begin
return nil
, but (..10).first
raise an exception.
-
(1..).size
return Infinity
, but ("a"..).size
return nil
.
- Behavior changes depending on the state of Range and the called method.
- It is difficult to determine if it is an infinite range.
Proposal methods¶
-
Range#beginless?
- return
true
if begin
is nil
-
Range#endless?
- return
true
if end
is nil
-
Range#infinite?
- return
true
if begin
is nil
or end
is nil
-
Range#finite?
- return
true
if begin
is not nil
and end
is not nil
Example¶
p (1..10).beginless? # => false
p (1..10).endless? # => false
p (1..10).infinite? # => false
p (1..10).finite? # => true
p (..10).beginless? # => true
p (..10).endless? # => false
p (..10).infinite? # => true
p (..10).finite? # => false
p (1..).beginless? # => false
p (1..).endless? # => true
p (1..).infinite? # => true
p (1..).finite? # => false
# NOTE: Float::INFINITY is not support
p (1..Float::INFINITY).beginless? # => false
p (1..Float::INFINITY).endless? # => false
p (1..Float::INFINITY).infinite? # => false
p (1..Float::INFINITY).finite? # => true
Use case¶
before¶
def search_in(range)
query = "/search"
if !(range.begin.nil? || range.end.nil?)
"#{query}?from=#{range.begin}&to=#{range.end}"
elsif range.begin.nil?
"#{query}?to=#{range.end}"
elsif range.end.nil?
"#{query}?from=#{range.begin}"
else
query
end
end
p search_in("2019-1-1".."2019-4-30")
# => "/search?from=2019-1-1&to=2019-4-30"
p search_in(.."2019-4-30")
# => "/search?to=2019-4-30"
p search_in("2019-5-1"..)
# => "/search?from=2019-5-1"
after¶
def search_in(range)
query = "/search"
if range.finite?
"#{query}?from=#{range.begin}&to=#{range.end}"
elsif range.beginless?
"#{query}?to=#{range.end}"
elsif range.endless?
"#{query}?from=#{range.begin}"
else
query
end
end
p search_in("2019-1-1".."2019-4-30")
# => "/search?from=2019-1-1&to=2019-4-30"
p search_in(.."2019-4-30")
# => "/search?to=2019-4-30"
p search_in("2019-5-1"..)
# => "/search?from=2019-5-1"
Memo¶
- Check whether the tip is infinite only with
nil
.
-
Float::INFINITY
is not supported.
- I think that there is no relation between
Float::INFINITY
and infinite Range.
- I would like an opinion on how to determine if it is infinite.
- see
range.begin.infinite?
?
- Uhether there is a better name for the method name.
- e.g.
#infinite?
to #infinity?
.
Thank you.
github pull request: https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/2196
Related issues
1 (1 open — 0 closed)
I think the proposal makes sense. The method names are a bit odd though.
I have no huge qualms with the inf* related methods, such as infinite? or
finite? although it reads a bit odd; but I think that .beginless? and
.endless? are very clumsy names.
Unfortunately I do not have better alternative suggestions either.
Perhaps it could suffice to only add e. g. ".infinite?" and we may not
even need ".finite?".
The use case on the other hand is clear to me, IMO, in particular
"(1..).size return Infinity, but ("a"..).size return nil." so it
would make sense to give ruby users the ability to check for
infinite in advance, rather than check for nil lateron.
I think that there is no relation between Float::INFINITY and infinite Range
I guess a/any concept of infinity should not necessarily be intrinsicalled
tied down to a particular constant (e. g. Float::INFINITY) per se; in the latter
case it would seem more like an implementation detail (to me), rather than a
more general concept for/of infinity.
Why is range.begin.nil? || range.end.nil?
not enough to check if beginless or endless Range?
Maybe we should integrate beginless/endless in pattern matching?
The use-case can be simplified quite a bit if we can assume false
is not used as a Range endpoint:
def search_in(range)
query = "/search"
if range.begin && range.end
"#{query}?from=#{range.begin}&to=#{range.end}"
elsif range.end
"#{query}?to=#{range.end}"
elsif range.begin
"#{query}?from=#{range.begin}"
else
query
end
end
I think infinite?
is a different concept, which already exists as Numeric#infinite?, and should definitely handle the Float::INFINITY case if introduced.
I think these are probably bugs:
p ("a"..).size # => nil
p (.."z").size # => nil
and should return infinity.
I have no strong opinion to the proposal itself, but I'm also skeptical to the motivating example. I'd like to write:
def search_in(range)
path = "/search"
query = []
query << "from=#{ range.begin }" if range.begin
query << "to=#{ range.end }" if range.end
query.empty? ? path : path + "?" + query.join("&")
end
I have no idea when we want to check if a range is just infinite without checking the actual values.
Currently, ("a"..).size #=> nil
is intended because ("a".."z").size #=> nil
. According to @marcandre (Marc-Andre Lafortune) https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14699#change-71575, there is no special reason why ("a".."z").size
returns nil. So after ("a".."z").size
is implemented correctly, I agree that ("a"..).size
should return infinity.
Thanks comments!
I think infinite? is a different concept, which already exists as Numeric#infinite?, and should definitely handle the Float::INFINITY case if introduced
I also considered the following implementation.
class Range
def beginless?
self.begin.nil? || (self.begin.respond_to?(:infinite?) && self.begin.infinite?)
end
end
MEMO: Numeric#infinite?
should also consider returning something other than true / false
.
So after ("a".."z").size is implemented correctly, I agree that ("a"..).size should return infinity.
I'm concerned about the performance of ("a".."z").size
.
Can implement ("a".."z").size
with O(1)
?
How about doing this?
("a".."z").size # => nil
(.."z").size # => Infinity
("a"..).size # => Infinity
Do you mean that Range#infinite?
is no longer needed if the behavior of ("a"..).size
is changed? If not, I think it is a different topic from this ticket.
I am against having finite?
or infinite?
methods. I don't think there's use-case for those methods.
Meanwhile, I see the small possibility for the usage of beginless?
and endless?
methods. But I don't like the names.
Matz.
- Related to Misc #16114: Naming of "beginless range" added
Other candidates from mathematical terms:
-
unbounded?
for checking whether begin
or end
is nil
-
lower_unbounded?
, left_unbounded?
, or unbounded_below?
for checking whether begin
is nil
-
upper_unbounded?
, right_unbounded?
, or unbounded_above?
for checking whether end
is nil
Having negative meaning in the method name would make it complicated. Having begin?
and end?
instead of beginless?
and endless?
would be more natural, and easy to comprehend.
In fact, the given use case:
def search_in(range)
query = "/search"
if range.finite?
"#{query}?from=#{range.begin}&to=#{range.end}"
elsif range.beginless?
"#{query}?to=#{range.end}"
elsif range.endless?
"#{query}?from=#{range.begin}"
else
query
end
end
is not straightforward; it is twisted. The intent of the elsif range.beginless?
condition is actually to check whether the end exists, not whether the beginning is absent. Using begin?
and end?
, a more straightforward code can be written as follows (I also believe your last condition is redundant, and there is no case that corresponds to your else
case).
def search_in(range)
query = "/search"
if range.finite?
"#{query}?from=#{range.begin}&to=#{range.end}"
elsif range.end?
"#{query}?to=#{range.end}"
else # `range.begin?` is always `true`
"#{query}?from=#{range.begin}"
end
end
Having begin?
and end?
instead of beginless?
and endless?
would be more natural, and easy to comprehend.
Agreed. Moreover, Range#begin
and #end
just work.
Also available in: Atom
PDF
Like0
Like0Like0Like0Like0Like0Like0Like0Like0Like0Like0Like0