"with" still sucks + removing features + adding features

[Alexander Pánek]

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> bearophile wrote:
>> Andrei Alexandrescu:
>>
>> Thank you for bringing a "real" example that gives something to work on.
>>
>>> Awful!<
>>
>> Well, one of your cases was wrong. Using the +1 at the end one of 
>> those cases become:
>> case 'A' .. 'Z'+1, 'a' .. 'z'+1:
>> Instead of what you have written:
>> case 'A' .. 'Z'+1: case 'a' .. 'z'+1:
>>
>> I agree that that syntax with +1 isn't very nice looking. But the 
>> advantage of +1 is that it introduces (almost) no new syntax, it's not 
>> easy to miss, its meaning is easy to understand. AND you don't have to 
>> remember that in a case the .. is inclusive while in foreach is 
>> exclusive on the right, keeping the standard way in D to denote ranges.
> 
> You don't understand. My point is not that people will dislike 'Z'+1. 
> They will FORGET TO WRITE THE BLESSED +1. They'll write:
> 
> case 'A' .. 'Z':

You know, Ruby solves this by introducing a “seperate” range syntax for 
exclusive ranges: “...”. An inclusive range is written the same as an 
exclusive range in D: “..”.

a[1 .. 2].length #=> 1 ([a[1]])
a[1 ... 2].length #=> 2 ([a[1], a[2]])

I see no reason not to include such a seperate syntax in D. “..” being 
exclusive and “...” being inclusive, not the other way round as in Ruby 
— see “Programmer’s Paradox” @ 
http://www.programmersparadox.com/2009/01/11/ruby-range-mnemonic/ .

Kind regards, Alex