Targeting C

[Yigal Chripun]

On 23/10/2009 17:51, Bill Baxter wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 5:13 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu
> <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org>  wrote:
>> Yigal Chripun wrote:
>>>
>>> On 23/10/2009 13:02, bearophile wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Chris Nicholson-Sauls:
>>>>
>>>>> I prefer this (Scala):
>>>>> list = list ++ (0 to 10)
>>>>
>>>> That's quite less readable. Scala sometimes has some unreadable syntax.
>>>> Python has taught me how much useful a readable syntax is :-)
>>>> Designing languages requires to find a balance between several different
>>>> and opposed needs.
>>>>
>>>> Bye,
>>>> bearophile
>>>
>>> how about this hypothetical syntax:
>>>
>>> list ~= [0..10];
>>
>> I'm not sure what the type of "list" is supposed to be, but this works today
>> for arrays:
>>
>> list ~= array(iota(0, 10));
>
> While we're not on the subject....
> "Iota" is right up there with "inSitu".
> I know it has a precedent elsewhere, but it sounds about as user
> friendly as monads.  It just sounds like the language it trying to be
> snooty.  Like "if you don't even know what iota is, you're clearly not
> qualified to join our little D club. Maybe you should try Java... or
> Logo".   Compare that to Python where it's called "range", something
> every Joe the Programmer can certainly grok without having to get a
> Greek to English dictionary.
>
> --bb

Ranges are already part of the compiler because of foreach, can we also 
add language support for Range literals?
i.e
(1..10) => range(1, 10) //(I'm using BB's much better name)
[1..10] => array(range(1, 10))

it already is supported is foreach, isn't it?
foreach (i; 1..10) {...}