"with" still sucks + removing features + adding features

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "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.

Yes. I got a rush of endorphine out of that one.

> 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.

I dislike the fall through as much as you do.


Andrei