"with" still sucks + removing features + adding features

Nick Sabalausky a at a.a
Mon May 18 19:21:34 PDT 2009

"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote in message 
news:gusuoi$ftk$2 at digitalmars.com...
> No! If I thought that, I would have said this is fine:
> case 'a' .. 'z':
> It is NOT fine because 'a' .. 'z' means one thing here and a different 
> thing in another place. So I went for:
> case 'a': .. case 'z':
> specifically because case 'a': .. case 'z': does NOT have any meaning 
> anywhere else.

After reading that over and over many times, I think I finally see what you 
were trying to get at with that. People are supposed to see that as:

case 'a': case 'b': case 'c': /*snipped, but you get the idea*/ case 'x': 
case 'y': case 'z':

And everything except the first and last is just "shrunk down". I think I 
understand how that can be seen as elegance.

But others have brought up some very valid objections that I really have to 
agree with, and I'll add one more: A lot of people don't like the whole 
"fall-through" thing anyway and want to see D move farther from it rather 
than embracing it as this syntax seems to do.

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list