Why don't Java, C# and C++ have ranges?

Question

Ada, Pascal and many other languages support ranges, a way to subtype integers. A range is a signed integer value which ranges from a value (first) to another (last). It's easy to implement a class that does the same in OOP but I think that supporting the feature natively could let the compiler to do additional static checks.

I know that it's impossible to verify statically that a variabile defined in a range is not going to "overflow" runtime, i.e. due to bad input, but I think that something could be done. I think about the Design by Contract approach (Eiffel) and the Spec# ( C# Contracts ), that give a more general solution.

Is there a simpler solution that checks, at least, static out-of-bound assignment at compile time in C++, C# and Java? Some kind of static-assert?

edit: I understand that "ranges" can be used for different purpose:

1. iterators
2. enumerators
3. integer subtype

I would focus on the latter, because the formers are easily mappable on C* language . I think about a closed set of values, something like the music volume, i.e. a range that goes from 1 up to 100. I would like to increment or decrement it by a value. I would like to have a compile error in case of static overflow, something like:

volume=rangeInt(0,100);
volume=101;  // compile error!
volume=getIntFromInput(); // possible runtime exception

Thanks.

Answer 1

Subrange types are not actually very useful in practice. We do not often allocate fixed length arrays, and there is also no reason for fixed sized integers. Usually where we do see fixed sized arrays they are acting as an enumeration, and we have a better (although "heavier") solution to that.

Subrange types also complicate the type system. It would be much more useful to bring in constraints between variables than to fixed constants.

(Obligatory mention that integers should be arbitrary size in any sensible language.)

Answer 2

Ranges are most useful when you can do something over that range, concisely. That means closures. For Java and C++ at least, a range type would be annoying compared to an iterator because you'd need to define an inner class to define what you're going to do over that range.