http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=199
--- Comment #18 from [email protected] 2013-05-29 10:17:39 PDT --- (In reply to comment #17) > (In reply to comment #10) > > According to this talk: > > http://forum.dlang.org/thread/[email protected]#post-axonofactkyzpagilcbm:40forum.dlang.org > > The spec does NOT state it should work that way. > > Yes it does, as I quoted in comment 5. > > LabeledStatement: > Identifier : NoScopeStatement That was my statement :D but it was rebuked by Ali in comment 7 that: It is still a bug because NoScopeStatement does not mean "expand into current scope." It means "do not introduce a scope" and clearly allows blocked statements: NoScopeStatement: ; NonEmptyStatement BlockStatement > (In reply to comment #16) > > (In reply to comment #15) > >> Walter Bright, comment #6: > >>> I don't want to change this because it could break existing code > >> > >> We could deprecate having a BlockStatement after a label, with a message > >> suggesting to move the label within the block. That way no code gets > >> broken. > > Wait. What? Deprecate having a block statement after a label? Why would we > > do > > that? That's completely arbitrary. Plus, that would *definitely* break more > > code than what we'd break with a straight up fix. > > My inkling is that, compared with the amount of code it would break, it would > cause far more code that was already broken to generate a compiler error. Isn't "code that was broken now generates a compiler error" good though...? I still maintain that the amount of use case in nature is probably trivially low. Of those, the amount it would break even lower. I have no proof, but D is modern, and modern tends to stay clear away of goto and labels anyways. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
