Issue #18368 has been updated by mame (Yusuke Endoh). The three clarifications described in #note-17 were discussed at the dev meeting. @matz said he wanted to make sure if the following pseudo code meets @zverok's expectation. ```ruby class Range def step(n) # TODO: we need to care "exclude end" # TODO: we should actually use <=> for comparison instead of >= or <= a, b = self.begin, self.end case n <=> 0 when -1 while a >= b yield a a += n end when 0 raise "step can't be 0" when 1 while a <= b yield a a += n end end end end ``` If it does, @zverok's three clarifications are all approved. However, it was noted that the following case does not work well with @zverok's patch. ```ruby (1..-1).step(-1.seconds) { p _1 } # expected: 1, 0 seconds, -1 seconds # actual: no output ``` Is it possible to fix this issue? @matz approved the third clarification "Drop support for generic #to_int.", but he also asked if we could keep the behavior by respecting `#to_int` on the `#coerce` side. Welcome if anyone can consider this. ---------------------------------------- Feature #18368: Range#step semantics for non-Numeric ranges https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/18368#change-103490 * Author: zverok (Victor Shepelev) * Status: Open * Priority: Normal ---------------------------------------- I am sorry if the question had already been discussed, can't find the relevant topic. "Intuitively", this looks (for me) like a meaningful statement: ```ruby (Time.parse('2021-12-01')..Time.parse('2021-12-24')).step(1.day).to_a # ^^^^^ or just 24*60*60 ``` Unfortunately, it doesn't work with "TypeError (can't iterate from Time)". Initially it looked like a bug for me, but after digging a bit into code/docs, I understood that `Range#step` has an odd semantics of "advance the begin N times with `#succ`, and yield the result", with N being always integer: ```ruby ('a'..'z').step(3).first(5) # => ["a", "d", "g", "j", "m"] ``` The fact that semantic is "odd" is confirmed by the fact that for Float it is redefined to do what I "intuitively" expected: ```ruby (1.0..7.0).step(0.3).first(5) # => [1.0, 1.3, 1.6, 1.9, 2.2] ``` (Like with [`Range#===` some time ago](https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/14575), I believe that to be a strong proof of the wrong generic semantics, if for numbers the semantics needed to be redefined completely.) Another thing to note is that "skip N elements" seem to be rather "generically Enumerable-related" yet it isn't defined on `Enumerable` (because nobody needs this semantics, typically!) Hence, two questions: * Can we redefine generic `Range#step` to new semantics (of using `begin + step` iteratively)? It is hard to imagine the amount of actual usage of the old behavior (with String?.. to what end?) in the wild * If the answer is "no", can we define a new method with new semantics, like, IDK, `Range#over(span)`? **UPD:** More examples of useful behavior (it is NOT only about core `Time` class): ```ruby require 'active_support/all' (1.minute..20.minutes).step(2.minutes).to_a #=> [1 minute, 3 minutes, 5 minutes, 7 minutes, 9 minutes, 11 minutes, 13 minutes, 15 minutes, 17 minutes, 19 minutes] require 'tod' (Tod::TimeOfDay.parse("8am")..Tod::TimeOfDay.parse("10am")).step(30.minutes).to_a #=> [#<Tod::TimeOfDay 08:00:00>, #<Tod::TimeOfDay 08:30:00>, #<Tod::TimeOfDay 09:00:00>, #<Tod::TimeOfDay 09:30:00>, #<Tod::TimeOfDay 10:00:00>] require 'matrix' (Vector[1, 2, 3]..).step(Vector[1, 1, 1]).take(3) #=> [Vector[1, 2, 3], Vector[2, 3, 4], Vector[3, 4, 5]] require 'unitwise' (Unitwise(0, 'km')..Unitwise(1, 'km')).step(Unitwise(100, 'm')).map(&:to_s) #=> ["0 km", "1/10 km", "1/5 km", "3/10 km", "2/5 km", "0.5 km", "3/5 km", "7/10 km", "4/5 km", "9/10 km", "1 km"] ``` **UPD:** Responding to discussion points: **Q:** Matz is concerned that the proposed simple definition will be confusing with the classes where `+` is redefined as concatenation. **A:** I believe that simplicity of semantics and ease of explaining ("it just uses `+` underneath, whatever `+` does, will be performed") will make the confusion minimal. **Q:** Why not introduce new API requirement (like "class of range's `begin` should implement `increment` method, and then it will be used in `step`) **A:** require *every* gem author to change *every* of their objects' behavior. For that, they should be aware of the change, consider it important enough to care, clearly understand the necessary semantics of implementation, have a resource to release a new version... Then all users of all such gems would be required to upgrade. The feature would be DOA (dead-on-arrival). The two alternative ways I am suggesting: change the behavior of `#step` or introduce a new method with desired behavior: 1. Easy to explain and announce 2. Require no other code changes to immediately become useful 3. With something like [backports](https://github.com/marcandre/backports) or [ruby-next](https://github.com/ruby-next/ruby-next) easy to start using even in older Ruby version, making the code more expressive even before it would be possible for some particular app/compny to upgrade to (say) 3.2 All examples of behavior from the code above are real `irb` output with monkey-patched `Range#step`, demonstrating how little change will be needed to code outside of the `Range`. -- https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/