Tim Matthews wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Tim Matthews wrote:
But it only explains the inclusive/exclusiveness and not any of the
other points.
Let's start with agreeing on why:
case X..Y:
is not appropriate.
Do we have to be so immature about this, it's an actual topic rather
than the random trolls that have been posted by many here.
I was originally asking about the ambiguity of not having the extra
colon but anyway:
There is no ambiguity in removing the extra colon.
Yes I agree double dot for case range is inconsistent with the double
dot for range due to one being inclusive of the endpoint. berophile
suggested using tripple dot in announce and he got "why?" as a reply.
The "why" has already been posted but the "why not" hasn't yet people
reply to me with "here we go again!".
My "why" embedded two longer comments:
a) Currently "..." ends something and ".." separates something, much
like in natural language. His suggestion would have "..." separate
something. Why?
b) Even if we ignore (a) for the moment, the "why" is legitimate at face
value: we have a syntax that is implemented and works. Any change to the
syntax should mark an improvement. Where is the improvement?
Just because it doesn't not work doesn't mean it must be adopted!
It has also been suggested in an earlier thread a range with ".." should
mean open and a range with "..." should mean closed. I explained back
then how that proposal was a complete disaster.
Alternatively don't use dots.
How would that work? And... why?
I think the issue with the extra "case" and/ ";" needs to be treated
differently. There or not the syntax may seem inconsistent to new D users.
I swear if I didn't know anything about the feature and saw the syntax
"case a: .. case b:" I'd know exactly what it does in a millisecond. Why
would the syntax seem inconsistent to new D users? First of all,
inconsistent with what? And how would you treat the issue differently?
Andrei
