--- Comment #21 from Andrei Alexandrescu <> 2011-09-05 
06:02:55 PDT ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> (In reply to comment #16)
> > Let's use [,,,] for all ranges. Thanks Kenji for your work.
> What's your rationale for this decision?

Absent other considerations, more consistency is better than less consistency.
You keep on asking for arbitrary differentiation of kinds of ranges in their
textual representation without any rationale. The burden is on you to justify
the inconsistency, not on Kenji to justify consistency.

Plus, the requests you are making now are self-contradictory. First, you want
the representation of the array to clarify its type:

> [1, 2]
> [1.0, 2.0]

This marginally differentiates floating point types from integral types.
However it's an incomplete solution as it doesn't differentiate across
float/double/real or short/int/long/uint etc. But let's note that here you are
asking for a format that helps type differentiation.

One paragraph below (!) you are asking for the exact opposite: less type
differentiation. You want to change

> Tuple!(int,string)(1, xx)


> tuple(1, "xx")

Both changes have pros and cons, but there's no guiding rationale behind them.

Configure issuemail:
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------

Reply via email to