Misc #19131
Updated by andrykonchin (Andrew Konchin) about 1 year ago
I've noticed a strange nuance and not sure whether it's intentional or not. In case it's intentional - it seems to me inconsistent.
I will illustrate it with the following example:
```ruby
/(.)(.)(.)(.)/.match("abcde").values_at(-5..-1) # => ["abcd", "a", "b", "c", "d"]
/(.)(.)(.)(.)/.match("abcde").values_at(-5) # => [nil]
```
So with a negative index we can address the whole matched string (`0` element) with a Range argument but cannot with an Integer index.
We can index with negative values only captured values:
```ruby
/(.)(.)(.)(.)/.match("abcde").values_at(-4) # => ["a"]
/(.)(.)(.)(.)/.match("abcde").values_at(-3) # => ["b"]
/(.)(.)(.)(.)/.match("abcde").values_at(-2) # => ["c"]
# ...
```
I would expect `Range` Range and `Integer` arguments are handled Integer should work consistently and either both allow to address the first element with negative index or both disallow it.
---
```
ruby -v
ruby 3.1.2p20 (2022-04-12 revision 4491bb740a) [x86_64-darwin21]
```