[Submission] D Slices

[KennyTM~]

On Jun 1, 11 05:37, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 5/31/11, Nick Sabalausky<a at a.a>  wrote:
>> "eles"<eles at eles.com>  wrote in message news:is3ihf$qnu$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>> == Quote from Ali Çehreli (acehreli at yahoo.com)'s article
>>>> On 05/31/2011 08:10 AM, eles wrote:
>>>>   >  I know no other examples where open-right limits are used.
>>>> The C++ standard library uses open-right with its pairs of
>>> iterators.
>>>> The second iterator "points" at one beyond the last element of the
>>> range.
>>>> Ali
>>>
>>> C'mon, if C++ is such a good standard, then D would have never
>>> appeared. Why not dropping D completely and go to C++ then?
>>>
>>> The fact that C++ uses it that way does not making it good for us.
>>>
>>> D choose slices, not iterators. Maybe we should remind why it did it
>>> in the first place.
>>>
>>> Now, we are taking the "enemy" (well, is a joke) as a reference in
>>> the matter?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> First you complain about D doing it differently from other popular
>> languages. Then when you're given a counterexample, you start complaining
>> that D *isn't* doing it differently??? You're really just trolling, aren't
>> you?
>>
>
> Matlab programmers, Java programmers, they all want D to act their way.
>
> As for switch statements (and this is getting offtopic), there are
> cases where fallback is nice to have..
>

It's already off-topic at the time the close vs open range debate has 
started :)

> final switch (param)
> {
>      case FILE_NEW:
>      case FILE_OPEN:
>      case FILE_SAVE:
>      case FILE_SAVE_AS:
>      case EDIT_UNDO:

In D you'd write it as

        case FILE_NEW, FILE_OPEN, FILE_SAVE, FILE_SAVE_AS, EDIT_UNDO:

this doesn't need fall-through.

>          throw new Exception("unimplemented!");  // or there would be
> one method that handles these cases
>      case EDIT_CUT:
>          handleCut();
>          break;
>      case EDIT_COPY:
>          handleCopy();
>          break;
>      case EDIT_PASTE:
>          handlePaste();
>          break;
>      case EDIT_CLEAR:
>          handleClear();
>          break;
> }
> return 0;
>
> If you didn't have fallback, you would probably have to add some kind
> of new statement like "goto next" or "fallback" on each of those
> cases.

It already exists. It is called#

            goto case;

>
> On the other hand, having to add break everywhere is a pain too. So
> maybe the change would benefit overall.
>

To avoid surprising C users, I don't think you can't avoid having to add 
break everywhere. But it's still good to disallow implicit fall-through. 
I think the C# behavior* is good enough.

> The switch statement is a weird construct. It's as if suddenly you're
> coding in Python with no curly braces. :)

*: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/06tc147t(v=VS.100).aspx
#: http://d-programming-language.org/statement.html#GotoStatement