Tracking issue for exclusive range patterns

[oli-obk]

Summary

This feature allows exclusive integer ranges (such as 0..100) in patterns.

fn is_digit(x: u32) -> bool {
    match x {
        0..10 => true,
        10.. => false,
    }
}

Concerns

• Conflict with the syntax of slice patterns Tracking issue for RFC #495 (features slice_patterns and advanced_slice_patterns) #23121
  • Tracking issue for #![feature(slice_patterns)] #62254 (comment)
• General concern about the syntax of inclusive/exclusive patterns

History and status

• Proposed and implemented in PR exclusive range patterns #35712
  • approved provisionally by lang team without an RFC

EDIT: the following is no longer true 12 jan 2019 nightly debug 2018:

Missing warning: unreachable pattern in the case when 1...10 then 1..10 are present in that order. That warning is present in case of 1..12 then 1..11 for example.

Example (playground link):

#![feature(exclusive_range_pattern)]
fn main() {
    let i = 9; //this hits whichever branch is first in the match without warning
    match i {
        1...10 => println!("hit inclusive"),
        1..10 => println!("hit exclusive"),//FIXME: there's no warning here
        // ^ can shuffle the above two, still no warnings.
        1...10 => println!("hit inclusive2"),//this does get warning: unreachable pattern
        1..10 => println!("hit exclusive2"),//this also gets warning: unreachable pattern

        _ => (),
    };

    //expecting a warning like in this:
    match i {
        1..12 => println!("hit 12"),
        1..11 => println!("hit 11"),//warning: unreachable pattern
        _ => (),
    }
}

[richard-uk1]

I've just been saved for the second time by the compiler when I did 1 .. 10, but meant 1 ..= 10. It might be worth considering that the compiler won't catch this error if exclusive ranges are allowed.

[donbright]

seems like exclusive range match would help to improve consistency ... why can i do range in a loop but not in a pattern?

 const MAXN:usize = 14;
 ... 
   for x in 0..MAXN  { blahblahblah(); }
 ...
   let s = match n {
      0..MAXN=>borkbork(),
      MAXN=>lastone(),
      _=>urgh(),
   };

also note that the following is not possible currently because the -1 will break the compile with "expected one of ::, =>, if, or | here"

   let s = match n {
      0..=MAXN-1=>borkbork(),
      MAXN=>lastone(),
      _=>urgh(),
   };

thank you

[kentfredric]

@donbright I know its a poor consolation, but a good workaround which ensures backwards compatibility might be:

        match i {
            0..=MAXN if i < MAXN => println!("Exclusive: {}", i),
            MAXN => println!("Limit: {}", i),
            _ => println!("Out of range: {}", i)
        }

playground

Figured this suggestion might help some poor soul who came here and also battled with not being allowed to use 0..=MAXN-1