dmd 1.046 and 2.031 releases

[Chad J]

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Ary Borenszweig wrote:
>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> Ary Borenszweig wrote:
>>>> のしいか (noshiika) escribió:
>>>>> Thank you for the great work, Walter and all the other contributors.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I am a bit disappointed with the CaseRangeStatement syntax.
>>>>> Why is it
>>>>>    case 0: .. case 9:
>>>>> instead of
>>>>>    case 0 .. 9:
>>>>>
>>>>> With the latter notation, ranges can be easily used together with
>>>>> commas, for example:
>>>>>    case 0, 2 .. 4, 6 .. 9:
>>>>>
>>>>> And CaseRangeStatement, being inconsistent with other syntaxes
>>>>> using the .. operator, i.e. slicing and ForeachRangeStatement,
>>>>> includes the endpoint.
>>>>> Shouldn't D make use of another operator to express ranges that
>>>>> include the endpoints as Ruby or Perl6 does?
>>>>
>>>> I agree.
>>>>
>>>> I think this syntax is yet another one of those things people
>>>> looking at D will say "ugly" and turn their heads away.
>>>
>>> And what did those people use when they wanted to express a range of
>>> case labels? In other words, where did those people turn their heads
>>> towards?
>>
>> They probably used an if.
> 
> So they used an inferior means to start with.
> 
>> But I think it's not about that. If D didn't have the possibility to
>> define case range statements, it would be better. Now there's a
>> possibility to do that, but with an ugly syntax (you'll find out when
>> this newsgroup will receive about one or two complaints about this
>> each month, not to mention there were already a lot of complaints).
> 
> This is speculation. And the complaints usually were accompanied with
> inferior suggestions for "improving" things. Everyone wanted to add some
> incomprehensible, inconsistent, or confusing syntax to do ranged cases,
> as long as it wasn't the one I'd chosen.
> 
>> You can find other "ugly" things by looking at repetitive mails to
>> this newsgroup.
> 
> I and others don't find the added syntax ugly in the least.
> 
>> Also, there's a limitation of just 256 cases. What's that? Where that
>> limitation come from? That looks week.
> 
> That's just an implementation limitation that future versions will
> eliminate.
> 
> 
> Andrei

Shoving is the way.  Pushing is inferior.