You are just saying it's ugly. I don't think it's ugly. Walter doesn't think it's ugly. Other people don't think it's ugly. Many of the people who said it's ugly actually came up with proposals that are arguably ugly, hopelessly confusing, or both. Look at only some of the rehashed proposals of today: the genial "case [0 .. 10]:" which is horribly inconsistent, and the awesome "case 0: ... case 10:", also inconsistent (and gratuitously so) because ellipses today only end lists without having something to their right. The authors claim those are better than the current syntax, and one even claimed "beauty", completely ignoring the utter lack of consistency with the rest of the language. I don't
I oriented this on the syntax of array slices. Which work that way. Not inconsistent at all. It's also consistent with foreach(_; x..y).
Other than that, I realize it's not that good of a choice and it's not elegant at all. But I think it's still better than some of your horrible language crimes (including yours) that are being forced into D.
In any way, I think we should completely redesign the switch statement and give it a different syntax. No more C compatibility. No more Duff's device. We can keep the "old" switch statement for that.
