On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 11:39:26PM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote: > So maybe the correct interpretation of the above is indeed this: > > (1..10)-1 # (1..10).length-1, e.g. 9 (oops!)
Do "range objects" return their length in scalar context? > (1..10) [-] 1 # (0..9) (correct, if that's WYM) That's how I would write it if that's what I meant. > meaning that (1..10)-1 almost always does The Wrong Thing(!) Indeed. -Scott -- Jonathan Scott Duff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
