bearophile wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu:
Thank you for bringing a "real" example that gives something to work on.
Awful!<
Well, one of your cases was wrong. Using the +1 at the end one of those cases
become:
case 'A' .. 'Z'+1, 'a' .. 'z'+1:
Instead of what you have written:
case 'A' .. 'Z'+1: case 'a' .. 'z'+1:
I agree that that syntax with +1 isn't very nice looking. But the advantage of
+1 is that it introduces (almost) no new syntax, it's not easy to miss, its
meaning is easy to understand. AND you don't have to remember that in a case
the .. is inclusive while in foreach is exclusive on the right, keeping the
standard way in D to denote ranges.
You don't understand. My point is not that people will dislike 'Z'+1.
They will FORGET TO WRITE THE BLESSED +1. They'll write:
case 'A' .. 'Z':
and they'll wonder why the hell Z is not handled. Now do you see why
it's sometimes ungainly to discuss language design here? It can only go
forever, and in the end anyone can say "but I just don't like it". In
fact I'll use that prerogative right now:
[snip]
Well... That's not perfect, but it looks better than the syntax suggested by
Andrei. Do you have better ideas?
I like my syntax better than all you mentioned, by a mile.
Andrei
