Make rangetree ranges inclusive.

[dustinhiatt-wf]

Makes rangetree ranges inclusive. Easier to reason about I think and matches what we are trying to do elsewhere. This will probably break the older repos, but should be an easy change for @alexandercampbell-wf I think.

@alexandercampbell-wf @rosshendrickson-wf @ericolson-wf @seanstrickland-wf @matthinrichsen-wf @wesleybalvanz-wf @blakewilson-wf

[alexandercampbell-wk]

+1, I agree that inclusive ranges make a lot more sense. I couldn't find any public users of this package, so hopefully this won't break anyone elses' code (and like you said, it's a simple fix if it does).

[seanstrickland-wf]

Is there any documentation that could be updated to specify that rangetree ranges are now inclusive?

[matthinrichsen-wf]

+1

[seanstrickland-wf]

+1 Other than my documentation comment. This will also fix the issue where you can't technically query for all entries. No range query can currently reach an entry like (5, MaxInt64) even though it is a valid 2-dimensional entry.

[alexandercampbell-wk]

@seanstrickland-wf there was no documentation on whether the rangetree was exclusive or inclusive before (or at least none that I could find).

[seanstrickland-wf]

@alexandercampbell-wf Yeah, don't you think it's an important detail to document? It's knowledge that is required in order to use this data structure. Instead of making people write a small test or dig through code to figure it out, wouldn't it be easier to specify it in the documentation?

[matthinrichsen-wf]

I would be in favor of documenting this functionality.

[dustinhiatt-wf]

@seanstrickland-wf @matthinrichsen-wf added additional info the interface docstrings.

[seanstrickland-wf]

+1

[blakewilson-wf]

+1

[rosshendrickson-wf]

Nice!

[teresarevious-wf]

@Rosie run_merge_script

[teresarevious-wf]

@Rosie run_merge_script