"with" still sucks + removing features + adding features

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Georg Wrede wrote:
> Rainer Deyke wrote:
>> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> Even Perl would turn its nose at a significant semantic difference
>>> brought by the third period.
>>
>> Not true: Perl has a '..' operator and a '...' operator with distinct
>> but similar meanings.  And as much as I loathe Perl in general, I don't
>> see anything wrong with that.  I am open to a reasonable alternate 
>> syntax.
> 
> Having both .. and ... wouldn't be too bad. They're insistinguishable 
> only as long as one is not expecting a distinction. But with a 
> programming language, they look dissimilar enough.
> 
> A side benefit would be to be able to specify inclusive and exclusive 
> ranges both within switch statements and range contexts.
> 
> '0' ... '9'
> 'a' ... 'z'
> a .. b
> a ... b
> 0 .. middle
> middle .. $
> 
> Of course, this idea will be drowned in a 2-month bicycle shed color 
> discussion about which should be the inclusive range and which the 
> exclusive one. And after that somebody suggests tokens for the remaining 
> two inclusion permutations, and then we really can forget all this for 
> good.

I'm now sorry I even mentioned the blessed thing. This must have been 
the worst discussion on language design, ever.

Andrei