Closed interval maybe a mistake?

[skiars]

In my current experience, the expression 0..5 means that [0,1,2,3,4,5] doesn't seem to work as well as [0,1,2,3,4], so the half-closed interval $[a, b)$ might be better?

[s-hadinger]

I'm afraid it would be a huge breaking change.

What about the math version: [0..5] for [0,1,2,3,4,5] and [0..5[ for [0,1,2,3,4] (if the syntax is possible)

The other option would be to use the Python equivalent [0:5]

[skiars]

Indeed, and I find some interesting uses of range:

> [1, 2, 3, 4][0 .. -1]
[1, 2, 3, 4]
> [1, 2, 3, 4][0 .. 0] # not an empty range
[1]
> [1, 2, 3, 4][0 .. -4]
[1]
> [1, 2, 3, 4][0 .. -5]
[]

[nobodywasishere]

You could also use Ruby syntax by adding another dot, but i can see how that would be confusing.

> [0..5]
[0,1,2,3,4,5]
> [0...5]
[0,1,2,3,4]

Another idea is having ..= and ..< to be more explicit, but it may look too ugly/verbose

> [0..=5]
[0,1,2,3,4,5]
> [0..<5]
[0,1,2,3,4]

[skiars]

The other option would be to use the Python equivalent [0:5]

I agree with this.

[s-hadinger]

Revisiting some old issues. Are you still in favor of this syntax for excluded last value?

[bartgrantham]

I'm just a casual observer who thinks Berry is really neat, but IMHO Python's a[start:stop:step] slice syntax strikes a nice balance between expressiveness and complexity. Especially with support for negative numbers.

[skiars]

This may be possible. Considering:

# if operator : has the following rules:
a : b # => range(a, b) if `a`, `b` is integer
a : b # => range(a.lower(), a.upper(), b) if `a` is a range, then update its step!

# examples:
1 : 10 : 2 # => range(1, 10, 2)

[skiars]

Revisiting some old issues. Are you still in favor of this syntax for excluded last value?

It doesn't seem like a big deal?