On 2020-07-29 13:52 -0400, Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe wrote:
> We should have
>
>     end = (+ start (* (/ (- end start) step) step)),
>
> which is just reversing the computation and checking if we get
> the same `end' that we were given.  This seems a little redundant,
> but the overhead (at range creation time) is minimal; if it catches
> some bad ranges, all the better.

Oops, no, this check is not only not redundant, it will reject some
valid ranges.  Post in haste...

So I guess we'll just stick to checking that the (length - 1)th
element is less than/greater than `end', as discussed above.

--
Wolfgang Corcoran-Mathe  <xxxxxx@sigwinch.xyz>

"Eventually, I decided that thinking was not getting me very far and
it was time to try building." --Rob Pike