Range#include? needs some optimization
|Target version:||next minor|
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.
#1 Updated by Alexey Muranov over 2 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.