On Thursday, 10 January 2013 at 03:09:58 UTC, Jonathan M Davis
wrote:
On Thursday, January 10, 2013 03:56:10 bearophile wrote:
comco:
> I won't like this code:
> class Pu {
>
> int a, b;
> this(int a, int b) {
>
> this.a = a;
> this.b = b;
>
> }
>
> }
>
> to issue warnings for a and b.
That's a nice warning to have, because that's bug-prone code,
worth avoiding.
So, basically, you want the compiler to yell at you for picking
a bad variable
name? There's _nothing_ to warn about in the code above. It's
perfectly valid.
I could see warning if you did
this.a = this.a;
or
a = a;
but
this.a = a;
is perfectly valid. And it would be _really_ annoying to not be
able to give
constructor parameters the same names as the member variables
that they're
used to set. Their names will typically differ be a _ if the
member variables
are private, but for POD types, they're almost certainly going
to be
identical, and warning about that would just be stupide.
- Jonathan M Davis
This argument can go on and on forever. What about getting some
hard data ?
We should start to gather data when considering such issue. What
about adding the warning in some dmd version and trying it on
several codebase to get a good view of the impact of such a
change ?
