To range on Infinity for BigInt

[Jack-Works]

Related: #7 (comment)

We can range 1 to Infinity now, but we can't range from 1n to Infinity. Because Infinity is not a BigInt.

But there is no representation of Infinity for BigInt. Should we add a speical case for that?

[Jack-Works]

BigInt will not be able to represent Infinity.
Should we add a special case for range?

[hax]

I would vote for yes.

Though Infinity is not a BigInt, bigint < Infinity works and always return true.

[waldemarhorwat]

I also vote for yes. We intentionally made it fine to compare BigInts and Numbers.

[tabatkins]

Yes, this should definitely work.

[Jack-Works]

please checkout #23

[Rudxain]

I couldn't find an issue that mentioned this. I was (now I'm not) getting worried that we'll never be able to have an "endless" BigInt iterator just because types don't match. BigInts are better suited for infinite sequences than Numbers

[ljharb]

@Rudxain #23 allows BigInt.range(Infinity), to my reading.

[Rudxain]

#23 allows BigInt.range(Infinity)

I know, I just wanted to post my thoughts about this (even though the issue is old, and has been closed by that PR).

I sometimes like to visit old posts on forums, GH issues, and social media, specially if I want to say something that hasn't been said by someone else