Range#include? needs some optimization
it seems that the procedure is:
- check whether 'aa' == 123 # false
- 'aa'.succ # 'ab'
- check whether 'ab' == 123 # false
- 'ab'.succ # 'ac'
- check whether 'ac' == 123 # false
n-1. 'ay'.succ # 'az'
n. check whether 'az' == 123 # false
finally return false
However, 'aa' and 123 are not the same class. It's not necessary to take the whole steps of 'succ' and '=='.
Maybe it should check 'aa'.class and 123.class first, or use <=> instead of == to check, when 'aa' <=> 123 returns nil(== only returns true/false, no nil), the procedure breaks.
Updated by alexeymuranov (Alexey Muranov) almost 11 years ago
There is method
Range#cover? for this.
Range#include? is inherited from
Enumerable module, so you are proposing to redefine it inside the class.
This being said, i also had a somewhat related proposal here: #5534. I suggested to basically treat Ranges as infinite sets, and define their methods accordingly. I think however that the "enumerable" part of behavior of range probably does not need to be changed.
Updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh) over 4 years ago
- Status changed from Assigned to Rejected
Joey: Please use Range#cover?, as alexeymuranov. In Ruby 2.6, Range#=== will be also equivalent to Range#cover?. [Feature #14575]
Alexey: Range is chaos. It has many inconsistencies. If you think it is really what to be fixed, please open another ticket.