"Daniel Keep" <daniel.keep.li...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:h2uoju$5f...@digitalmars.com... > > 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.
I like bike sheds.