On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Tim Matthews<[email protected]> wrote: > Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >> >> Existing actual or perceived inconsistencies are not an argument for >> adding more of them. >> > > Seriously?
d00d. Does that really need explanation? Two wrongs don't make a right is all he's saying. Do you disagree? >> a) It is not arguably better and more suggestive than the syntax in place. > > I can't guarantee that it's better but I do think an argument can prove a > result. Thats what arguments for. But the argument has already been had previously here on the NG. I guess you missed it. >> b) "(1,3)" already means two things, neither of which has anything to do > > Could you kindly state those? > > I can see that just having "(1,3)" preceded with the "case" keyword makes > most other meanings impossible. Unless you have been told what it means, people seeing it for the first time will probably not guess that it means a range. It looks like a case list to me that would only stop on case 1 or case 3. We already have the syntax "case 1,3:" so just adding parentheses to that doesn't really scream out "range". --bb
