RangeOf[...] implemented

[gsinclair]

E.g. RangeOf[Nat] or RangeOf[String] or ...

Includes tests but not TUTORIAL.md as that is under potential change
from pull request #170.

[Feature request #169]

[alex-fedorov]

Can you use && instead of and?

I don't see a reason to not add this to tutorial in this PR.

Otherwise looks good.
On Jul 3, 2015 7:24 AM, "Gavin Sinclair" notifications@github.com wrote:

E.g. RangeOf[Nat] or RangeOf[String] or ...

Includes tests but not TUTORIAL.md as that is under potential change
from pull request #170

#170.

You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at:

#171
Commit Summary

• RangeOf[...] implemented

File Changes

• M lib/contracts/builtin_contracts.rb
  https://github.com/egonSchiele/contracts.ruby/pull/171/files#diff-0
  (18)
• M spec/builtin_contracts_spec.rb
  https://github.com/egonSchiele/contracts.ruby/pull/171/files#diff-1
  (38)
• M spec/fixtures/fixtures.rb
  https://github.com/egonSchiele/contracts.ruby/pull/171/files#diff-2
  (12)

Patch Links:

• https://github.com/egonSchiele/contracts.ruby/pull/171.patch
• https://github.com/egonSchiele/contracts.ruby/pull/171.diff

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#171.

[gsinclair]

Both done in commit baed1fd.

[gsinclair]

Hmm... I tested on one machine and had no problem. (I forget the ruby version of that machine and can't access it right now.) But now on another machine I've got errors. Another commit needed.

As a matter of interest, one of these is bad code:

3.is_a? Integer and 6 > 3
3.is_a? Integer && 6 > 3

[waterlink]

Yeah, that is why && is preferred in ruby community: and has unexpected operator priority.

[waterlink]

Rubocop reports some issues on travis, can you fix them ?

[gsinclair]

Done using local rubocop.