Endless ranges have inconsistency between #cover? and #include?
In an endless Range, I'd expect to be able to use
#include? just as I do with a Range that has an end value. It would amount to just a check on whether the argument was greater than or equal to the start value of that Range (and likewise, if "startless" ranges are eventually supported, it'd just be a check on the Range's end value, or if it were possibly to have both a startless and endless Range, always return
In Ruby 2.6.4, behaviour is unexpected. I "need to know" if a Range is endless and implement the check myself, because using
#include? results in
RangeError (cannot get the last element of endless range). The reason this feels like a bug, apart from being merely unhelpful, is because
#cover? accepts a single value rather than a Range too - and this behaves exactly as we might expect. I can ask if
(1..).cover?(0) and get false, or
(1..).cover?(2000) and get
true, just like I'd expect.
It's weird that
#cover? works, but
#include? throws an unusual exception. In my particular use case I have an array of Ranges for various periods of time that typically terminates in an endless Range for "everything afterwards". Being able to write clear, simple code that treats each of these the same to see if a given discrete time falls into a particular time "bucket" is obviously valuable. It'd be ugly to have to check each time to see if a given Range was endless and treat it specially, just because
#include? would otherwise raise an exception. In this case, at least,
#cover? comes to the rescue :-)
If there's a general agreement that this should be a thing, I could look into producing a patch to have
#include? be a bit better behaved when dealing with endless ranges.
Updated by adh1003 (Andrew Hodgkinson) 7 months ago
Doh, this needs closing; my apologies. I had not realised that I was testing in an execution environment that had pulled in ActiveSupport from Rails 6. This seems to break
#include? in an endless Range. When I'm careful to use "vanilla"
irb alone to try it on the CLI, the method behaves entirely as expected.
I'll raise the issue with the Rails team, if there isn't a matching issue already.