"with" still sucks + removing features + adding features
jason.james.house at gmail.com
Mon May 18 15:29:53 PDT 2009
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> Jason House wrote:
> > Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> >> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> >>> On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
> >>> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
> >>>> Final switch works with enums and forces you to handle each and every value
> >>>> of the enum. Regular switch gets ranged cases by the syntax case a: .. case
> >>>> b: (I've always thought switch would be greatly helped by that).
> >>> Kind of an odd syntax. Why not "case a .. b:"? Parsing issues?
> >> It's consistency. Everywhere in the language a .. b implies b is
> >> excluded. In a switch you want to include b. So I reflected that in the
> >> syntax. In fact, I confess I'm more proud than I should be about that
> >> little detail.
> > Consistency???
> > While I can see where you're coming from, I still see plenty of inconsistencies. It's still a range (defined with .. too). Having slices and foreach use syntax a and meaning 1 but switch using syntax a' and meaning 2 kind of sucks.
> You'd have to squint real hard to see a range. A range is
> expr1 .. expr2
> That code is
> case expr1: .. case expr2:
> I mean you can't tell me that as soon as ".." is within a mile it's a range.
It's all a matter of perspective. I see both as begin .. end. That may be the same reason why I think addition when I see foo(bar()) + baz(37). The extra cruft is more or less ignored when figuring out the basics of what is going on.
More information about the Digitalmars-d