And heeeeere we go again!
*sigh*
> switch( foo )
> {
> case 0:
> ..
> case 5:
> blah();
> break;
>
> default:
> bork();
> }
Doesn't look so bad, does it? For the record, I think the current
syntax is ugly. But:
* it WORKS,
* it is reasonably distinct from all the other uses of ".." which have a
DIFFERENT MEANING,
* it has an easily-explained rationale: "the .. stands in for the case
labels you would have written."
Can we please, please stop the useless bike-shedding on this NG? Yes,
it's a bit ugly, but all the alternatives proposed have SEMANTIC issues
with them, which is much worse.
