"with" still sucks + removing features + adding features

[Frank Benoit]

Alexander Pánek schrieb:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> bearophile wrote:
>>> Andrei Alexandrescu:
>>>
>>> Thank you for bringing a "real" example that gives something to work on.
>>>
>>>> Awful!<
>>>
>>> Well, one of your cases was wrong. Using the +1 at the end one of
>>> those cases become:
>>> case 'A' .. 'Z'+1, 'a' .. 'z'+1:
>>> Instead of what you have written:
>>> case 'A' .. 'Z'+1: case 'a' .. 'z'+1:
>>>
>>> I agree that that syntax with +1 isn't very nice looking. But the
>>> advantage of +1 is that it introduces (almost) no new syntax, it's
>>> not easy to miss, its meaning is easy to understand. AND you don't
>>> have to remember that in a case the .. is inclusive while in foreach
>>> is exclusive on the right, keeping the standard way in D to denote
>>> ranges.
>>
>> You don't understand. My point is not that people will dislike 'Z'+1.
>> They will FORGET TO WRITE THE BLESSED +1. They'll write:
>>
>> case 'A' .. 'Z':
> 
> You know, Ruby solves this by introducing a “seperate” range syntax for
> exclusive ranges: “...”. An inclusive range is written the same as an
> exclusive range in D: “..”.
> 
> a[1 .. 2].length #=> 1 ([a[1]])
> a[1 ... 2].length #=> 2 ([a[1], a[2]])
> 
> I see no reason not to include such a seperate syntax in D. “..” being
> exclusive and “...” being inclusive, not the other way round as in Ruby
> — see “Programmer’s Paradox” @
> http://www.programmersparadox.com/2009/01/11/ruby-range-mnemonic/ .
> 
> Kind regards, Alex

Yes, this is useful for all use cases of ranges.
I like '...'.