https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24649
--- Comment #2 from Bolpat <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Dennis from comment #1) > More feasable would be to extend the Range element as a whole, for example > like in odin: > > ``` > for i in 0..=9 {} > for i in 0..<10 {} > ``` > > https://odin-lang.org/docs/overview/#range-based-for-loop I get where this is coming from, but in D, already, `..` is with exclusive upper bounds. What I’ve seen, `..` or `...` means inclusive upper bound and `..<` is used for exclusive. We can’t do that. I really thought about that, and just nothing came to my mind that really makes sense. We could use `foreach (i; L ... U)` for inclusive upper bounds, but a single `.` making the difference maybe isn’t a great idea, and, more importantly, `..` looks like the inclusive and `...` the exclusive one, when it’s exactly reverse. (I’d bet there’s a language that does exactly this, but I don’t remember which.) What I’d take from Odin is `..<=`, but not `..=`. A downside I can see people being confused because there being `..<=` implies there is `..<` but that one wouldn’t exist. (There would have to be added a special error message telling people to use just `..` instead of `..<`.) > Adding magic rules to the + operator in a specific context is a bad idea. I don’t see why exactly this is the case. Technically speaking, it wouldn’t even be the `+` operator, it’s part of the `foreach` syntax, similar how in an argument list, or array literals, commas aren’t comma operators, but part of the list syntax. --
