On Mon, 18 May 2009 20:05:14 -0600, Rainer Deyke wrote: > Bill Baxter wrote: > Although non-inclusive ranges are common enough that they deserve their > own syntax, I think inclusive ranges are *also* important enough to > deserve their own syntax. Writing '+1' is often error-prone or even > just plain wrong (such as when it leads to integer overflow).
Agreed. > I favor the syntax 'a ... b' for inclusive ranges. It's easy to read > and similar to 'a .. b' without being too similar. It does require the > programmer to pay attention, but that's unavoidable. From there, it > naturally follows that 'case's in a 'switch' statement should follow the > same convention. Sorry, but I don't share your sense of "easy to read" here. The eye can glaze over the third dot very easily and just not notice it. -- Derek Parnell Melbourne, Australia skype: derek.j.parnell