Frank Benoit wrote:
Alexander Pánek schrieb:
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
bearophile wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu:
Thank you for bringing a "real" example that gives something to work on.
Awful!<
Well, one of your cases was wrong. Using the +1 at the end one of
those cases become:
case 'A' .. 'Z'+1, 'a' .. 'z'+1:
Instead of what you have written:
case 'A' .. 'Z'+1: case 'a' .. 'z'+1:
I agree that that syntax with +1 isn't very nice looking. But the
advantage of +1 is that it introduces (almost) no new syntax, it's
not easy to miss, its meaning is easy to understand. AND you don't
have to remember that in a case the .. is inclusive while in foreach
is exclusive on the right, keeping the standard way in D to denote
ranges.
You don't understand. My point is not that people will dislike 'Z'+1.
They will FORGET TO WRITE THE BLESSED +1. They'll write:
case 'A' .. 'Z':
You know, Ruby solves this by introducing a “seperate” range syntax for
exclusive ranges: “...”. An inclusive range is written the same as an
exclusive range in D: “..”.
a[1 .. 2].length #=> 1 ([a[1]])
a[1 ... 2].length #=> 2 ([a[1], a[2]])
I see no reason not to include such a seperate syntax in D. “..” being
exclusive and “...” being inclusive, not the other way round as in Ruby
— see “Programmer’s Paradox” @
http://www.programmersparadox.com/2009/01/11/ruby-range-mnemonic/ .
Kind regards, Alex
Yes, this is useful for all use cases of ranges.
I like '...'.
Indeed it's not a bad idea... But it might be easily mistyped, lead to
strange off-by-one errors and be very difficult to find while debugging
them. Hmmm...
