[Submission] D Slices

[eles]

> This has been discussed a lot of times before. See
> http://digitalmars.com/d/archives/digitalmars/D/
About_switch_case_statements..._101110.html#N101112.

Thank you. I know. I follow this newsgroup since the days when
EvilOne Minayev was still posting here and also witnessed D 1.0 and
old D group dying and the new digitalmars.D (because of Google
indexing - while we are at indexes) and so on.

I know this was discussing before. What I do not agree is the
conclusion and the reason behind, which mainly is:

"One of D's design policies is
 that a D code that looks like C code should behave like C."


Wel, is BAAAAD policy! Yes, if C code *is accepted as is*, then it
should behave *like C*. I agree!

But there is also a lot of C code that is simply *not accepted*. An I
think it was Don Clugston that tracked down some time ago some
strange and difficult bug caused by the fact that D was still
accepting the C cumbersome syntax for declaring function pointers and
arrays in the old style. Walter got rid of that syntax.

So, the point is not about *accepting C-like code and imposing a
different behavior* (which would be a distraction for C programmers
and prone to bugs because old habits die hard) but *simply NOT accept
some kind of C-code*. With errors and so on.

Even for the existing C code, all that this is asking is to write
some "fall" for those branches that do not have "break". Are there so
many? Is this an overwhelming task?