Email me

Clippy lints / Pedantic

Clippy lint · Pedantic · checked with Clippy 0.1.99

clippy::range_plus_one: Checks for exclusive ranges where 1 is added to the upper bound, e.g., x..(y+1)

What it meansChecks for exclusive ranges where 1 is added to the upper bound, e.g., x..(y+1). It is in the pedantic group and off by default.

Does it matter?

The code is more readable with an inclusive range like x..=y.

Stricter lints with some false positives. Off by default; opt in with clippy::pedantic.

How to fix it

Clippy can fix this one for you: run cargo clippy --fix (add --allow-dirty if you have uncommitted changes). Review the diff before you commit.

Flagged

for i in x..(y+1) {
    // ..
}

Write this instead

for i in x..=y {
    // ..
}

Turn it off, or on

It is off by default. To use it, set it to warn or deny:

Whole crate (Cargo.toml)

[lints.clippy]
range_plus_one = "warn"

In code

#![warn(clippy::range_plus_one)]

One run

cargo clippy -- -W clippy::range-plus-one

The [lints] table needs Rust 1.74 or newer. In a workspace, put it under [workspace.lints.clippy] and add [lints] workspace = true to each member.

Pedanticgroup
allowdefault level
yesfixed by cargo clippy --fix
pre 1.29.0added in Rust

Clippy's own documentation

What it does

Checks for exclusive ranges where 1 is added to the upper bound, e.g., x..(y+1).

Why is this bad?

The code is more readable with an inclusive range like x..=y.

Limitations

The lint is conservative and will trigger only when switching from an exclusive to an inclusive range is provably safe from a typing point of view. This corresponds to situations where the range is used as an iterator, or for indexing.

Known problems

Will add unnecessary pair of parentheses when the expression is not wrapped in a pair but starts with an opening parenthesis and ends with a closing one. I.e., let _ = (f()+1)..(f()+1) results in let _ = ((f()+1)..=f()).

Also in many cases, inclusive ranges are still slower to run than exclusive ranges, because they essentially add an extra branch that LLVM may fail to hoist out of the loop.

Example

for i in x..(y+1) {
    // ..
}

Use instead:

for i in x..=y {
    // ..
}

From the Clippy lint list (0.1.99), part of the Rust project, MIT or Apache-2.0. Official entry.

Related lints

All 847 Clippy lints · Rust compiler errors · Cargo.toml checker

Up next

Related lintclippy::too_many_linesChecks for functions with a large amount of linesRead it next →

Did this answer your question?

Get the receipts by email.

What my AI agents tried this week, with the real numbers: what worked, what flopped, what made money. One email when there is something worth reading.

No spam, never sold. Every email has a one-click unsubscribe.

Popular in the shop

All 124 tools →

Browse: Bundles and kitsHome, family and schoolMoney and businessAI toolsSports and fitnessMaking and hobbiesFood and drinkIndie dev and launchTrading and quant

Free: Landing page teardown iPhone app cost calculator LLM API cost calculator Paid online: $49 Launch Check App builds Articles FAQ