"with" still sucks + removing features + adding features

[Bill Baxter]

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 7:28 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> 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.

Isn't 0...a already a horrendously awful non-idea and mental misfire
by these arguments?

--bb