"with" still sucks + removing features + adding features

[Ary Borenszweig]

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> 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.

This is easily solved by making the lexer not allow the "...." token, or 
   "....." token, etc. (maximum 3 dots.) This way you are forced to 
insert a space there to make your intention clear, and you can never 
have bugs like that.

Perfect material for "Why D is a beautiful language" articles.