Just curious: why in D we are not obligated to use break in every
branch of a swicth structure? That is:
switch (i)
{
case 1:
writeln(You wrote 1);
case 2:
writeln(You wrote 2);
case 3:
On 01/19/2012 10:55 PM, RenatoL wrote:
Just curious: why in D we are not obligated to use break in every
branch of a swicth structure? That is:
switch (i)
{
case 1:
writeln(You wrote 1);
case 2:
writeln(You wrote 2);
Compile with -w enabled and the compiler will complain about
implicit
fall-through. You can use goto case/goto default for explicit fall-
through.
This gives a little relief
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:55:06 +1100, RenatoL rex...@gmail.com wrote:
Just curious: why in D we are not obligated to use break in every
branch of a swicth structure?
a) C/C++ compatibility
b) Walter likes this construct and uses it in his code.
I use a language that enables the coder to choose
Timon Gehr:
Compile with -w enabled and the compiler will complain about implicit
fall-through.
And eventually this specific -w behavior will be enforced even without -w,
becoming part of D2, just like the use of override.
Bye,
bearophile
RenatoL wrote:
why in D we are not obligated
This depends on how the designer wants the coders to think about the
semantics of a label.
If a label _always_ is an _additional_ entry into an otherwise linear
sequence of commands, then fall-through as standard is the consequence.
If a label
On Thursday, January 19, 2012 22:10:19 Peter Alexander wrote:
Consistency with C and C++ mainly.
Some people find it convenient, but it is unarguably a frequent source
of bugs that we could do without.
I'd be _very_ annoying if you couldn't do fall-through with switch-statements.
That's a
On 20 January 2012 00:46, Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote:
On Thursday, January 19, 2012 22:10:19 Peter Alexander wrote:
Consistency with C and C++ mainly.
Some people find it convenient, but it is unarguably a frequent source
of bugs that we could do without.
I'd be _very_
On Friday, January 20, 2012 01:03:21 Matej Nanut wrote:
I like the error DMD (-w) gives in this situation a lot. It has saved
me precious minutes of debugging on more than one occasion. :)
And I never liked ‘warning:’s anyway. If something is dangerous enough
to warrant a warning, the
== Quote from Derek (ddparn...@bigpond.com)'s article
I use a language that enables the coder to choose to use fall through or
not. By default, falling through is disabled, so to produce the D effect
one can code ...
switch i do
case 1 then
writeln(You wrote
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 07:19:07PM -0500, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
[...]
Personally, I always compile with -w and have increasingly come to
agree with Walter's thinking on this. I've long believed that
responsible programmers don't commit code with warnings in it. And if
warnings are never
On Friday, January 20, 2012 00:38:49 Era Scarecrow wrote:
Personal experience in a program (not a language) is that having certain
options on automatically usually is more of an annoyance, than manually
turning them on. With that said, having explicit fall through sounds more
useful than
12 matches
Mail list logo
