This is the exact opposite to ruby, which uses `0..n` as inclusive, and `0...n` as exclusive http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9690801/difference-between-doub

This is the exact opposite to ruby, which uses `0..n` as inclusive, and `0...n` as exclusive http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9690801/difference-between-double-dot-and-triple-dot-in-range-generation http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9690801/difference-betwee... I always remembered it as "the third dot makes it bigger so it pushes the range and the last item falls off". I can't remember where that came from, perhaps related to the poignant guide: http://poignant.guide/book/chapter-3.html#section2 http://poignant.guide/book/chapter-3.html#section2 I actually find in practice the swift ranges are the only ones I can reliably use without having to stop and look up the reference syntax every time. For some reason, for me, `0..<n` reads as "0 through less than n" which signals to my brain a clear signal of an exclusive range. Then I can work from there and if it doesn't have the < symbol it must be exclusive. I suspect `0..=n` would work similarly well, but I've not seen a real language to ever do that yet