"with" still sucks + removing features + adding features

[Georg Wrede]

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote in message 
> news:gutd12$16h9$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> Let me make a separate point. With "...", people just defined the space 
>> operator. What's the space operator? Changes the meaning of 0...10 in two 
>> distinct ways:
>>
>> 0...10 is an all-inclusive integer range from 0 to 10
>> 0. ..10 is a right-open floating-point range from 0 to 10
>> 0.. .10 is a right-open floating-point range from 0 to 0.1
> 
> So '1.' and '.1'  are legal numbers in D? I would have assumed that any 
> numerical literal with a decimal point would require at least one digit on 
> both sides of the decimal point. Not sure I see a good reason for this not 
> to be required. 

Agreed. Saving ink in 1. versus 1.0 and .1 versus 0.1 is stupid -- even 
if we don't consider "the new space operator" implications!!!!!! It 
really makes it hard to spot the odd decimal value when you're not 
expecting it there.

That's mainly an American invention. In Europe, in most countries, you 
couldn't ever write .1 without everybody shouting typo!

Had D been invented in Europe, .1 would never have crossed anybodys 
mind. After several decades, I'm still uncomfortable when anybody writes 
.1, be it in programming or on street billboards.


Then we could go on (not that Andrei ever meant it, so I'm not serious 
here), and write

1.0..2.0   an all-inclusive floating range from 1.0 to 2.0
1.0 ..2.0   a right-inclusive floating range from 1.0 to 2.0
1.0.. 2.0   a left-inclusive floating range from 1.0 to 2.0
1.0 .. 2.0   a non-inclusive floating range from 1.0 to 2.0

1..2   an all-inclusive integer range from 1 to 2
1 ..2   a right-inclusive integer range from 1 to 2
1.. 2   a left-inclusive integer range from 1 to 2
1 .. 2   a non-iclusive integer range from 1 to 2

(And we didn't even need the triple-dot operator!)

But this would break existing code, make white-space significant, choke 
Andrei, pop Walter's ulcer, and generally be reminiscent of interpreted 
languages (read: embarrassing).

(Not that whitespace isn't already significant in a way, otherwise we 
could write 1 . 2 and it would be the same thing as 1.2.)


Actually, I'm not sure there would be ambuguity with the American 
decimals, either:

1....2   an all-inclusive range from 1. to .2
1. ...2   a right-inclusive range from 1. to .2
1... .2   a left-inclusive range from 1. to .2
1. .. .2   a non-inclusive range from 1. to .2
1...2   Error: improperly mixing integers and floating point.

Note, I'm personally against having decimals in ranges in the first place.