Stupid little iota of an idea

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Jacob Carlborg" <doob at me.com> wrote in message 
news:ij6emq$27so$2 at digitalmars.com...
> On 2011-02-12 02:25, bearophile wrote:
>> Michel Fortin:
>>
>>> No one noticed yet that the a..b:c syntax causes ambiguity? Tell me,
>>> how do you rewrite this using the new proposed syntax:
>>>
>>> auto aa = [iota(a, b, c): 1, iota(d, e): 2];
>>
>> Right, that's why in another post I have said that syntax replaces most 
>> iota usages. There are some situations where you can't use it well. This 
>> is another situation I've shown in the enhancement request:
>> iota(10.,20.)
>> Writing it like this is not sane:
>>   10...20.
>
> Why can't we just get rid of that floating point literal syntax, it just 
> causes problem.
>

It's another one of those things, like octal literals, that are there just 
because Walter likes it.