• Brother Bill (7/7) Jul 25 We have range 10..15 which has elements: 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 but
• jmh530 (2/4) Jul 25 What languages?
• Lance Bachmeier (2/6) Jul 25 The operator being proposed is taken from Rust.
• monkyyy (3/11) Jul 25 I suggested a `x..y+1` special case before this section even
• Lance Bachmeier (21/29) Jul 25 Given the poor design of the language for this type of thing, I
• Steven Schveighoffer (17/37) Jul 25 ```d

Brother Bill <brotherbill mail.com> writes:

We have range 10..15 which has elements: 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 but 
not 15

Recommend operator ..= as in 10..=15 or operator ... as in 10...15
This would produce inclusive range of elements: 10, 11, 12, 13, 
14, 15

These operators are in other languages.

I am sure that I am not the first to recommend this.

jmh530 <john.michael.hall gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 25 July 2025 at 18:41:12 UTC, Brother Bill wrote:
 
 These operators are in other languages.

What languages?

Lance Bachmeier <no spam.net> writes:

On Friday, 25 July 2025 at 18:46:04 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
 On Friday, 25 July 2025 at 18:41:12 UTC, Brother Bill wrote:
 
 These operators are in other languages.

 What languages?

The operator being proposed is taken from Rust.

monkyyy <crazymonkyyy gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 25 July 2025 at 18:41:12 UTC, Brother Bill wrote:
 We have range 10..15 which has elements: 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 but 
 not 15

 Recommend operator ..= as in 10..=15 or operator ... as in 
 10...15
 This would produce inclusive range of elements: 10, 11, 12, 13, 
 14, 15

 These operators are in other languages.

 I am sure that I am not the first to recommend this.

I suggested a `x..y+1` special case before this section even 
existed; was told to use the enum members trait or iota!"[]"

Lance Bachmeier <no spam.net> writes:

On Friday, 25 July 2025 at 18:41:12 UTC, Brother Bill wrote:
 We have range 10..15 which has elements: 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 but 
 not 15

 Recommend operator ..= as in 10..=15 or operator ... as in 
 10...15
 This would produce inclusive range of elements: 10, 11, 12, 13, 
 14, 15

 These operators are in other languages.

 I am sure that I am not the first to recommend this.

Given the poor design of the language for this type of thing, I 
don't think it would be worth adding new syntax until that's 
cleared up.

```
void main() {
     // Nope
     // long[] a = 1..4;
     // Nope
     // long[] a = [ 1..4 ];
     import std.range: iota;
     // Nope
     // long[] a = iota(1, 5);
     import std.array: array;
     // Nope
     // long[] a = iota(1, 5).array;
     import std.conv: to;
     // Finally!
     long[] a = iota(1, 5).array.to!(long[]);
}
```

Steven Schveighoffer <schveiguy gmail.com> writes:

On Friday, 25 July 2025 at 19:42:53 UTC, Lance Bachmeier wrote:
 Given the poor design of the language for this type of thing, I 
 don't think it would be worth adding new syntax until that's 
 cleared up.

 ```
 void main() {
     // Nope
     // long[] a = 1..4;
     // Nope
     // long[] a = [ 1..4 ];
     import std.range: iota;
     // Nope
     // long[] a = iota(1, 5);
     import std.array: array;
     // Nope
     // long[] a = iota(1, 5).array;
     import std.conv: to;
     // Finally!
     long[] a = iota(1, 5).array.to!(long[]);
 }
 ```

```d
auto a = iota(1L, 5L).array;
```

But yeah, I would like to see `x .. y` become an expression that 
reduces to a specialized type, and then we could have things like 
`array(1L .. 5L)`

As for the OP's idea, I'm not fully against it. But what it 
replaces is quite sensible also. I'm not sure it's worth the 
extra feature:

```d
x ..= y
x .. y+1
```

In general, I have not found the lack of this syntax to be an 
impediment.

-Steve