Hello retard,
Lists can also be infinite in lazy languages so [1..$] makes little sense. So the example was a bit misleading. But if you see how lists are implemented with algebraic types, you might also see how other structures like trees (list is a degenerated tree) are matched.
The points you bring up I think support NOT adding this to D because there are so many cases that supporting them all in the language would get to messy.
The most general case I think would work is, when the switch type is a user defined type, to allow any literal as the case labels as long as the switch type defines == for it and then require that the only one case compare as equals. With that requirement, the optimizer might be able to inline and fold a LOT of code in some cases.
-- ... <IXOYE><
