I have not read this entire topic, but what about the following:
case 5, .., 9:
Or even:
case 5.., 9:
This actually can be very logical, IMHO, because it's saying that 9 is
included very specifically.
Other possibilities that could be explored:
case for 5, 9:
case somekindofrange!(5, 9):
In any case, I am unsure how to indent the current syntax within my
coding standards. This is unacceptable to me:
case 5: .. case 9:
(which honestly has the same problem you name.) I guess I have to use this:
case 5: ...
case 9:
But, certainly that .. will get lost. Alas, I suppose I will pretend
this feature of D does not exist, then. I have serious concerns with
loading multiple statements on one line, and otherwise it's invisible.
-[Unknown]
Walter Bright wrote:
Tim Matthews wrote:
But it only explains the inclusive/exclusiveness and not any of the
other points.
Let's start with agreeing on why:
case X..Y:
is not appropriate.
Do you not agree that the syntax looks a little ugly?
I haven't seen any thing less ugly that is workable.
