"with" still sucks + removing features + adding features

[Jason House]

Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:

> Jason House wrote:
> > Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
> > 
> >> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> >>> On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
> >>> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Final switch works with enums and forces you to handle each and every value
> >>>> of the enum. Regular switch gets ranged cases by the syntax case a: .. case
> >>>> b: (I've always thought switch would be greatly helped by that).
> >>> Kind of an odd syntax.  Why not "case a .. b:"?  Parsing issues?
> >> It's consistency. Everywhere in the language a .. b implies b is 
> >> excluded. In a switch you want to include b. So I reflected that in the 
> >> syntax. In fact, I confess I'm more proud than I should be about that 
> >> little detail.
> > 
> > Consistency???
> > 
> > While I can see where you're coming from, I still see plenty of inconsistencies. It's still a range (defined with .. too). Having slices and foreach use syntax a and meaning 1 but switch using syntax a' and meaning 2 kind of sucks. 
> 
> You'd have to squint real hard to see a range. A range is
> 
> expr1 .. expr2
> 
> That code is
> 
> case expr1: .. case expr2:
> 
> I mean you can't tell me that as soon as ".." is within a mile it's a range.
> 
> 
> Andrei

It's all a matter of perspective. I see both as begin .. end. That may be the same reason why I think addition when I see foo(bar()) + baz(37). The extra cruft is more or less ignored when figuring out the basics of what is going on.