These are chat archives for rust-lang/rust
0...10pattern is already a thing in pattern matching, so that's an argument for
.... One could argue that the damage is already done. I, personally, like the consistency of using
...for inclusive ranges, but I can see the risk of typos.
...for ranges and range patterns, then it would be absurd to have
...for patterns in the first place
...patterns are exclusive, but
...ranges are inclusive...
...patterns should be inclusive
...patterns were exclusive :P
..for exclusive and
...for inclusive, but I think it would be harder to motivate a third syntax. It would be like https://xkcd.com/927/ and cause more confusion than what we would otherwise have. That's why I'm for that as well.
xthen be "n + 1"?
x < lenconvention.