"with" still sucks + removing features + adding features

Bill Baxter wbaxter at gmail.com
Mon May 18 21:01:26 PDT 2009

On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Derek Parnell <derek at psych.ward> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 May 2009 20:05:14 -0600, Rainer Deyke wrote:
>> Bill Baxter wrote:
>> Although non-inclusive ranges are common enough that they deserve their
>> own syntax, I think inclusive ranges are *also* important enough to
>> deserve their own syntax.  Writing '+1' is often error-prone or even
>> just plain wrong (such as when it leads to integer overflow).
> Agreed.
>> I favor the syntax 'a ... b' for inclusive ranges.  It's easy to read
>> and similar to 'a .. b' without being too similar.  It does require the
>> programmer to pay attention, but that's unavoidable.  From there, it
>> naturally follows that 'case's in a 'switch' statement should follow the
>> same convention.
> Sorry, but I don't share your sense of "easy to read" here. The eye can
> glaze over the third dot very easily and just not notice it.

That's often said, but if you're looking at it in a fixed-width font,
then I don't agree that it's so easy to glaze over the third dot.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list