Case Range Statement ..

[Bill Baxter]

On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Tim Matthews<tim.matthews7 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>
>> Existing actual or perceived inconsistencies are not an argument for
>> adding more of them.
>>
>
> Seriously?

d00d.  Does that really need explanation?  Two wrongs don't make a
right is all he's saying.  Do you disagree?


>> a) It is not arguably better and more suggestive than the syntax in place.
>
> I can't guarantee that it's better but I do think an argument can prove a
> result. Thats what arguments for.

But the argument has already been had previously here on the NG.  I
guess you missed it.


>> b) "(1,3)" already means two things, neither of which has anything to do
>
> Could you kindly state those?
>
> I can see that just having "(1,3)" preceded with the "case" keyword makes
> most other meanings impossible.

Unless you have been told what it means, people seeing it for the
first time will probably not guess that it means a range.  It looks
like a case list to me that would only stop on case 1 or case 3.   We
already have the syntax  "case 1,3:" so just adding parentheses to
that doesn't really scream out "range".

--bb