grauzone wrote:
I oriented this on the syntax of array slices. Which work that way. Not inconsistent at all. It's also consistent with foreach(_; x..y).
It would look consistent, but it would behave very differently. x..y for foreach and slices is exclusive of the y, while case x..y is inclusive.
Creating such an inconsistency would sentence programmers to forever thinking "which way is it this time".
To avoid such confusion an obviously different syntax is required.
