grauzone wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
のしいか (noshiika) wrote:
Thank you for the great work, Walter and all the other contributors.
But I am a bit disappointed with the CaseRangeStatement syntax.
Why is it
case 0: .. case 9:
instead of
case 0 .. 9:
Or
case [0..10]:
?
Compatible to how list slicing works.
Ah yes, bikeshed issue, but my solution is more beautiful.
Also, Walter, did you ever think about doing something about the
fall-through-by-default issue? Of course in a way that preserves C
compatibility.
Do u mean this
http://digitalmars.com/d/2.0/statement.html#FinalSwitchStatement
