http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4077
Steven Schveighoffer <schvei...@yahoo.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |schvei...@yahoo.com --- Comment #6 from Steven Schveighoffer <schvei...@yahoo.com> 2010-04-12 06:09:47 PDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > Care to quantify 'frequent'? Just because something can cause a bug doesn't > make it a disaster. I can't recall ever making a bit wise precedence error > myself. Of course, that too isn't proof of anything. I run into this all the time. It makes me absolutely paranoid about bitops to where I sometimes write things like: if((a | b)) or a = (b | c); Before I realize the extra parens don't do much :) If you write routines that parse protocols or use bitfield flags, you will run into this bug. I always wondered why bitwise operators were lower in precedence than comparison, but you just learn to accept it (and judiciously use parentheses around such things). If D could make strides to help solve this problem, I think it would be great. Probably not earth shattering, but just another feather in the cap. When someone writes something like: if(a | b == c) I'd say it's always an error. Not even almost always, but always. If D could flag this as such, it would be a good thing. I strongly feel, however, that bitwise ops should simply have a higher precedent than comparison, since the current behavior is always an error. You will not find any C code that looks like this on purpose. I don't see any reason to keep the current interpretation regardless. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------