Andrei Alexandrescu, el 6 de julio a las 18:32 me escribiste: > Leandro Lucarella wrote: > >Andrei Alexandrescu, el 6 de julio a las 10:44 me escribiste: > >>>>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. > >Yes, but when you try to make people move to a different language, you > >have to do considerably better. When I have to choose between something > >well know, well supported and mature and something that is, at least, > >unknown (even if it's mature and well supported, I won't know that until > >I use it a lot so is a risk), I want to be really good, not just barely > >good. > > That goes without saying. > > >Details as this one are not deal breaker on their own, but when they are > >a lot, it tends to make the language look ugly as a whole. > > 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 > claim expertise in language design, so I wish there were a few good > experts in this group.
Please read the thread at D NG, the current syntax *is* inconsistent too. -- Leandro Lucarella (luca) | Blog colectivo: http://www.mazziblog.com.ar/blog/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------