I think when possible every object should support deconstructing IF
it makes sense. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, then it
can be dequacked (deconstructed like a duck).
I guess one question may be how useful something it is, whether there
is an actual use case or not - people to use that. Perhaps it may be
better to see and wait for (several) people who really had a use
case to do so and evaluate again in a few months.
1 in Integer(..0)
"I believe the latter example looks pretty logical "
To me this looks very, very, very strange.
Is that still ruby at all? :P
I guess it follows from a logical continuation, e. g. " if
x in y" works, and "beginless ranges" work, then the above
should work too. But the syntax is so strange - I wonder
if I am the only one feeling about that so if that is the
case I'll happily quiet down. But to my eyes it looks very
strange.