"with" still sucks + removing features + adding features

[Georg Wrede]

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> 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.

I was only half serious. :-)