Hacker News Reader

Comment by mirsadm | Hacker News Reader

Adding additional syntax to a language for this case seems bonkers to me. People can just write 0..10.

If you need `0..=n`, you can't write `0..(n+1)` because that addition might overflow.

I'm actually curious now how this is stored on `Range` in rust. I've certainly used ..= for exactly the reason you say, but as far as I'm aware `.end` on the range is the exclusive upper bound in all cases. What happens to `.end` in the overflowing case?

Edit: it doesn't use Range for ..=, but rather RangeInclusive, which works fine.

It's more meant for usage with variables:

  for i in 0..length {
    …
  }

  for i in 0..=maxindex {
    …
  }

Reply on news.ycombinator.com