🐛 Fix SequenceSet#max(n) when cardinality < n <= size
#580
+14
−1
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
When `SequenceSet#max(n)` is called with `n > cardinality`, it _should_ return a duplicate of the whole set. But, `#max(n)` is implemented using `#slice(-n..)`, and (copying the behavior of `Array`), when a slicing starts from an out-of-range index, it returns `nil`. It was using `-[count, size].min` to keep the index from going out-of-range. Prior to #564, `#size` was the same as `#count`, so it would give incorrect results when the set contains an endless range. After #564, this gives incorrect results when the ordered list contains duplicates. This change should also give a small performance boost, because it bypasses the complexity of `#slice(range)` and just calls `#dup` (or returns `self` when the set is frozen). This issue was one of the motivations for #563 (and #564), but then I forgot about the bug, so it wasn't fixed in time for 0.6.0!
nevans
added
bug
nevans
changed the title
SequenceSet#max(n) when cardinality < n <= size
nevans
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 17, 2025
This backports #580 to `v0.5-stable`. When `SequenceSet#max(n)` is called with `n > cardinality`, it _should_ return a duplicate of the whole set. But, `#max(n)` is implemented using `#slice(-n..)`, and (copying the behavior of `Array`), when a slicing starts from an out-of-range index, it returns `nil`. It was using `-[count, size].min` to keep the index from going out-of-range. Prior to 0.6.0, `#size` is the same as `#count`, so it gives incorrect results when the set contains an endless range. `SequenceSet#cardinality` has not been backported to 0.5, so this makes that calculation inline. This change should also give a small performance boost, because it bypasses the complexity of `#slice(range)` and just calls `#dup` (or returns `self` when the set is frozen).
nevans
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 17, 2025
This backports #580 to `v0.5-stable`. When `SequenceSet#max(n)` is called with `n > cardinality`, it _should_ return a duplicate of the whole set. But, `#max(n)` is implemented using `#slice(-n..)`, and (copying the behavior of `Array`), when a slicing starts from an out-of-range index, it returns `nil`. It was using `-[count, size].min` to keep the index from going out-of-range. Prior to 0.6.0, `#size` is the same as `#count`, so it gives incorrect results when the set contains an endless range. `SequenceSet#cardinality` has not been backported to 0.5, so this makes that calculation inline. This change should also give a small performance boost, because it bypasses the complexity of `#slice(range)` and just calls `#dup` (or returns `self` when the set is frozen).
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This issue was one of the motivations for #563 (and #564), but then I forgot about the bug, so it wasn't fixed in time for 0.6.0!
When
SequenceSet#max(n)is called withn > cardinality, it should return a duplicate of the whole set. But,#max(n)is implemented using#slice(-n..), and (copying the behavior ofArray), when a slicing starts from an out-of-range index, it returnsnil.It was using
-[count, size].minto keep the index from going out-of-range. Prior to #564,#sizewas the same as#count, so it would give incorrect results when the set contains an endless range. After #564, this gives incorrect results when the ordered list contains duplicates.This change should also give a small performance boost, because it bypasses the complexity of
#slice(range)and just calls#dup(or returnsselfwhen the set is frozen).