Pattern matching ranges in C# are awesome

[gladkiypasha]

0 < x && x < 100 is my favorite way.
I'd love 0 < x < 100 if it was possible.

[EdKolis]

Why do we need a different syntax for boolean operations in pattern matching and that alone? This is just confusing.

[cn-ml]

Lol, why are there only bot comments here? Btw, great video! Works only with const values, btw

[KvapuJanjalia]

Why is your IDE (Rider, by looks of it) underlining them as warnings?

[JacobGlanz]

Thanks for listening
On your last short about pattern matching I asked for more

[anar.bastanov]

You should probably suppress the warnings from the top of the file

[izobrr]

Unfortunately, this only works with constant values. You cannot even use this with System.Decimal

[hasmich]

Only 4 more to celebrate guys, get ready!

[gpapadopoulos]

For range checks, wouldn't be better if we could use 0..100, may be surrounded by square brackets?

[inzyster]

What is the real advantage of using this syntax? I'd imagine they haven't introduced it just for funsies, so what is this syntax doing that the "plain" syntax can't?

[JackTheSpades]

import reminder that writing "not < 10 or > 90" the "not" only applies to the first one. So it becomes (x >= 10 || x > 90) which then simplifies to just (x >= 10).
tl;dr:
x is not < 10 or > 90
is not the same as
x is not (< 10 or > 90)

[MinimalistDev]

This is just stupid and ugly, they could have just replaced the && with 'and', It would have looked like Python. That 'is' is just so extra. If we continue at this pace, in 10 years C# would be a complete shitshow.

[FeLiNe]

Seeing function and property names starting with a capital letter, hurts the eyes.

[RealCheesyBread]

Why does pattern matching only work with constant values? Like wtf were they thinking?

[dadsoul]

I have been watching your content for a long time. I'm just messing with you. My neighbors don't care about pattern matching operations lol.
I wish they would have considered how awkward `x is { } name` looks. I wouldn't care if it didn't recommend I do that instead of a simple null check

[しめい-lm]

it looks so odd that your IDE thinks it's a
mistake...

why not just 1 < x < 3?

[HhddGufif]

This syntax is cumbersome to read, dont you think?

[ignispurgatorius]

While it's an improvement over <cumbersomeVariable name> < 1 && <cumbersomeVariableName> > -1 I'd still prefer just writing -1 < <cumbersomeVariableName> < 1.

[corykeilig]

I hate c# even more because it’s hard to read, I don’t want a complex OO language with endless non intuitive features and syntax sugar. Just a solid language with solid libraries and primitives please

[Albivl]

And this is how a feature becomes a PR review nightmare. This makes C# a visual Basic twin. Features like this where you write the same thing in 150 different ways make a language die quickly, especially for basic stuff like this. && and || are the brain default values for any normal non sucking dev. Mathematical expression of terms should be the norm, we should not let math illiterate people touch code if they don't understand it.