On 2/16/2014 10:39 PM, Manu wrote:
Yeah, but when I suggest a..b, I suggest applying existing [) range rules, as would be expected. It doesn't make sense for enum keys, and I think the existing syntax is acceptable for [] usage with enum keys, but you're not always switching on enums. Perhaps supporting both would be useful, where a..b is [) as expected, and 'case A: .. case B:' is [] for use with enums?
There was a HUGE debate on all this back when the feature was first added, and every miniscule possibility and detail was thoroughly examined and argued ad nauseam.
IIRC, I was actually one the people not real happy with the syntax we have, but the thing is, it really isn't a big deal. It's just syntactical details on one particular construct. Yea, switch could be nicer looking, and it's not one of the nicer parts of D syntax, but the semantics are reasonably solid and that's the important part. The rest is just details and bikeshedding.
Personally, I would LOVE to see Nemerle's match statement/expression get into D, but other than that, out of all the tasks D faces, the switch syntax is pretty bottom-rung on both the importance and significance scales.
