Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > Ary Borenszweig wrote: >> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >>> Ary Borenszweig wrote: >>>> のしいか (noshiika) escribió: >>>>> Thank you for the great work, Walter and all the other contributors. >>>>> >>>>> But I am a bit disappointed with the CaseRangeStatement syntax. >>>>> Why is it >>>>> case 0: .. case 9: >>>>> instead of >>>>> case 0 .. 9: >>>>> >>>>> With the latter notation, ranges can be easily used together with >>>>> commas, for example: >>>>> case 0, 2 .. 4, 6 .. 9: >>>>> >>>>> And CaseRangeStatement, being inconsistent with other syntaxes >>>>> using the .. operator, i.e. slicing and ForeachRangeStatement, >>>>> includes the endpoint. >>>>> Shouldn't D make use of another operator to express ranges that >>>>> include the endpoints as Ruby or Perl6 does? >>>> >>>> I agree. >>>> >>>> I think this syntax is yet another one of those things people >>>> looking at D will say "ugly" and turn their heads away. >>> >>> And what did those people use when they wanted to express a range of >>> case labels? In other words, where did those people turn their heads >>> towards? >> >> They probably used an if. > > So they used an inferior means to start with. > >> But I think it's not about that. If D didn't have the possibility to >> define case range statements, it would be better. Now there's a >> possibility to do that, but with an ugly syntax (you'll find out when >> this newsgroup will receive about one or two complaints about this >> each month, not to mention there were already a lot of complaints). > > This is speculation. And the complaints usually were accompanied with > inferior suggestions for "improving" things. Everyone wanted to add some > incomprehensible, inconsistent, or confusing syntax to do ranged cases, > as long as it wasn't the one I'd chosen. > >> You can find other "ugly" things by looking at repetitive mails to >> this newsgroup. > > I and others don't find the added syntax ugly in the least. > >> Also, there's a limitation of just 256 cases. What's that? Where that >> limitation come from? That looks week. > > That's just an implementation limitation that future versions will > eliminate. > > > Andrei
Shoving is the way. Pushing is inferior.
