"with" still sucks + removing features + adding features

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Denis Koroskin wrote:
> On Wed, 20 May 2009 00:43:56 +0400, Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
> 
>> It's an awful idea. It's a non-idea. If "idea" had an antonym, that  
>> would be it.
>>
>> I can't fathom what's on the mind of a person (not you, at least you
>> foresee some potential problems) who, even after patiently explained the
>> issues with this mental misfire, several times, still can bring
>> themselves to think it's not that bad.
>>
> 
> Your post is emotional rather than rational.

Agreed. In my defense, let me mention that I've been rational in my 
previous 50 posts on the topic :o).

>> Let me add one more, although more than sure someone will find a remedy
>> for it, too.
>>
>> a...b
>>
>> vs.
>>
>> a.. .b
>>
> 
> a..b vs a.b - no one complains

You see, you didn't understand my point. My point was that the 
introduction of a space changes semantics. We should avoid that.

> It also gracefully solves an issue with uniform distribution
> 
> uniform(0..int.max)  - exclusive
> uniform(0...int.max) - inclusive (can't be replaced with 0..int.max+1)

Yeah, and this does something else:

uniform(0....int.max)

and if you use an alias we also have:

uniform(0.....A.max)

It's interesting how there is a continuum of number of "." that still 
lead to compilable code that does different things every time. Perfect 
material for "Why D is a horrible language" articles.


Andrei