Don't you think this kind of behavior is actually somewhat misleading? I think It would be better to raise

It depends on usage. For example, I am storing sequence in the DB and want to continue where I left off, since using sequence to "mark" received messages and remove them from the DB. "Ring" kind of update is suitable for this usage, or at least I think so.

Kindest regards

Yes, probably you are right about the most common use case here, but the code allows for example ridiculously large or negative numbers to be slightly ignored and replaced with default value.
@eigenein what do you think?

Hiya!

I'm not in favour of silently changing a parameter value, this is usually makes debugging harder.

I'd rather go for one of these:

• raise ValueError, and then user is able to catch it and instantiate the generator with default minimum
• Make a dedicated ring sequence generator, shouldn't be that much code

Hi,
thanks. Will do both.

Well be in touch.

Cheers