On 9/15/07, kendear <summercoolness@gmail.com> wrote:
> given the ease of using Ruby, I wonder whether we will have rand(m, n) in
> the future...
>
> right now, we need to use rand(range) + start
>
> and it can cause a bug that can otherwise be avoided if we have rand(m, n)
> for the clarity.

Why not instead suggest rand(m..n)? That would, I think, be more
readable than rand(m, n).

-austin
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com * http://www.halostatue.ca/
* austin@halostatue.ca * http://www.halostatue.ca/feed/
* austin@zieglers.ca