http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=199
--- Comment #20 from [email protected] 2013-05-29 11:38:54 PDT --- (In reply to comment #19) > (In reply to comment #18) > > It is still a bug because NoScopeStatement does not mean "expand into > > current scope." It means "do not introduce a scope" > > What is the distinction you are making here? Well, if it was a "ScopedStatement", it would have meant that: ----- label: int i; //i is scoped here i = 5; //Error, i has not been declared ----- In contrast, with a NoScopedStatement, all it means is that when you write: ----- label: "{stuff}" ----- It means that that "{stuff}" itself is not scoped: the "{stuff}" statement can be seen from the outside. But that doesn't mean the "{stuff}" itself doesn't create its own internal scope, which contains "stuff", and which can't be seen from the outside... That's how I read it now, and the explanation Ali was making. > > Isn't "code that was broken now generates a compiler error" good though...? > > It is, and that's part of the point I was trying to make. Ok, cool. Since it was a reply to me, it seemed you were arguing against it. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
