Denis Koroskin wrote:
On Wed, 20 May 2009 00:43:56 +0400, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote:
It's an awful idea. It's a non-idea. If "idea" had an antonym, that
would be it.
I can't fathom what's on the mind of a person (not you, at least you
foresee some potential problems) who, even after patiently explained the
issues with this mental misfire, several times, still can bring
themselves to think it's not that bad.
Your post is emotional rather than rational.
Agreed. In my defense, let me mention that I've been rational in my
previous 50 posts on the topic :o).
Let me add one more, although more than sure someone will find a remedy
for it, too.
a...b
vs.
a.. .b
a..b vs a.b - no one complains
You see, you didn't understand my point. My point was that the
introduction of a space changes semantics. We should avoid that.
It also gracefully solves an issue with uniform distribution
uniform(0..int.max) - exclusive
uniform(0...int.max) - inclusive (can't be replaced with 0..int.max+1)
Yeah, and this does something else:
uniform(0....int.max)
and if you use an alias we also have:
uniform(0.....A.max)
It's interesting how there is a continuum of number of "." that still
lead to compilable code that does different things every time. Perfect
material for "Why D is a horrible language" articles.
Andrei
