Contradiction in RFC1192 (Inclusive Ranges)

[thepowersgang]

The "Detailed design" section mentions

Writing ...b in an expression desugars to std::ops::RangeToInclusive { end: b }.

However, the "Alternatives" sections states

This RFC doesn't propose non-double-ended syntax, like a..., ...b or ... since it isn't clear that this is so useful. Maybe it is.

From what I have gathered, the specified design has been implemented.

[durka]

Hmm, you're right. I did implement a...b and ...b. My understanding is a... is reserved for possible variadic generic syntax In The Future.

There was discussion in the RFC about ...b, and the text was updated but some parts missed as you noticed.

cc @aturon