In the former versions it appeared a good idea to give the index of the tick that is closest to the provided position. In the context of defining a range in the ticks this is at least awkward if not outright wrong.
I changed the behavior accordingly to return the first not-less index
…t is not less than position
In the former versions it appeared a good idea to give the index of the tick that is closest to the provided position. In the context of defining a range in the ticks this is at least awkward if not outright wrong.
I changed the behavior accordingly to return the first not-less index