On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:37:43 -0500, Walter Bright
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/18/2014 8:38 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
My point though, is that the change to require default gains you
nothing except
annoyed programmers. Why put it in?
This was fiercely debated at length and settled here years ago. It isn't
going to change.
I thought it was a more recent change than years ago. When was the change
made? Looking it up, looks like 2011. That was a long time ago, longer
than I thought.
The comparison I AM making is that we are implementation a requirement
that will
not achieve the behavior goal it sets out to achieve.
It's been this way for years now, if there was emergent bad behavior, it
would be obvious by now. But I haven't heard any reports of such.
Emergent bad behavior is not the result I would expect. Most likely,
leaving out the default case was not an error. If this fixed a "bug" that
didn't exist, the fact that bad behavior didn't result isn't really
informative.
What I really would be curious about is if in most D code, you see a lot
more default: break; than default: assert(0);
In any case, I am not vehemently against requiring a default case, it's
not terrible to put in default: break; I just find it somewhat puzzling
that it's required.
-Steve
