Suggestion: new switch statement

[Kristian]

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 21:12:31 +0300, Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 at yahoo.com>  
wrote:

> Jeff wrote:
>> How about allowing:
>>  switch (val) {
>>     case (1) {
>>     doX();
>>     } case (2, 3) {
>>         doY();
>>     } default {
>>         doZ();
>>     }
>> )
>>  Or would this create some horrible syntactic ambiguities? Or, on the  
>> other hand, it could just be too damn ugly. ;)
>
> Please see my proposal of the same thing from years ago:
>
> http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/22722.html
>
> Stewart.
>

Grhm, that was over 2.5 years ago... :(

I know there are much important things to get right and working, but I  
sure do hope that Walter will someday (after 1.0?) improve the syntax for  
some parts.

But yes, range definitions would be good to have indeed. It never occured  
to me that cases could have else statements, that could be nice also. :)