On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Derek Parnell<de...@psych.ward> wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:01:12 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
>> To me they look the same, but if people are happier with wasting
>> vertical space, sure.
>
> I think I've finally worked out why I don't like this syntax. Consider this
> ...
>
>
> switch (X) {
> case 1: funcA(); break;
> case 2,5,7,10 .. 17, 24, 32: funcB(); break;
> case 3,6,8,18 .. 23: funcC(); break;
> }
>
> In other words, allowing a range of value inside a list of values.
>
> How is this possible in today's D?
By adding the word "case" several more times.
I really wish we would just go with two-dots for exclusive, three-dots
for inclusive, and make that work consistently everywhere.
The "too similar to see the difference" argument just doesn't hold
weight with me. Unless you're programming in a proportional-width
font the difference is pretty obvious. Or define some other char
sequence to mean inclusive range. Like a ..|b or a..:b or a..^b,
etc.
--bb
