Tim Matthews wrote:
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
No. Also, this final switch feature seems to be only marginally useful,
and normal switch statements do the same, just at runtime. So much for
"more pressing issues" but it's his language and not mine so I'll shut up.
