On 04/13/2011 07:44 AM, Emil Madsen wrote:
On 13 April 2011 14:36, Steven Schveighoffer <schvei...@yahoo.com
<mailto:schvei...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 18:00:40 -0400, spir <denis.s...@gmail.com
<mailto:denis.s...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 04/12/2011 11:51 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 17:21:57 -0400, spir
<denis.s...@gmail.com <mailto:denis.s...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On 04/12/2011 09:21 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
int main(){
int a,b;
do{
scanf("%d %d",&a,&b);
}while(a<b) //note missing semicolon here
return 0;
}
The grammar specifies this correctly, but then
again, the example uses the
semicolon.
(http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/statement.html#DoStatement)
[...]
I think the grammar should be changed...
yop!
This is almost as bad as go's
requirement for if statement opening block to be on
the same line...
why? I like Go's syntactuc diffs. (except for its
"multi-for")
in Go, this:
if(x)
{
gosWriteRoutineThatIDontKnowTheSyntaxOf("hello")
}
is equivalent to this in D:
if(x)
{
}
writeln("hello");
This is frankly unforgivable IMO.
Of course it's fixable, but the attitude that "the coder
should know better"
doesn't really make me comfortable with it. And I hate the
"brace on the same
line" format (but this of course is not a real argument
against it).
Oh, that's what you meant! I find this a Good Thing, in that it
enforces one bracing style (the right one, that does not eats
one more line for just a '{').
No, it doesn't enforce anything. The above compiles and runs. What
it does is introduce subtle bugs.
The way to fix it is to make the above an error.
About knowing or not about this (non/mis/-)feature, it's written
down, and clearly, in all Go docs I've read. And one cannot miss
it for very long anyway ;-)
I know that if(xyz); is not *ever* what I meant, but in C it
compiles. However, in D, it tells me I shouldn't do that. What
results is less bugs because I can't make that mistake without the
compiler complaining.
I'm not saying that the spec isn't well defined, or the manual isn't
clear, what I'm saying is, the attitude reflected in the rule is
that greater burden is put on the developer to make sure they follow
the rules without compiler enforcement. It makes me want to not use
Go. And in fact, I will probably never use it as long as this rule
is in place.
Maybe, if not done already, a line starting with an opening
brace should generate a parsing error.
Typically this is used to create a new scope in C/D/Java/C#. This
allows declaring temporary variables, not sure how it is in Go, but
I'd assume something similar.
-Steve
Does D throw an error at; if(expression && expression)*; *or only at
if(expression);
Because you could actually use the first one, alike this:
<code>
#include <stdio.h>
bool test()
{
printf("test\n");
return false;
}
bool test2()
{
printf("test2\n");
return true;
}
int main()
{
if(test() && test2());
}
</code>
Output = "test"
if test returns true, then: Output = "test" + "test2"
Simply because its conditional, and if the first one fails, why bother
evaluating the rest?
--
// Yours sincerely
// Emil 'Skeen' Madsen
I would argue that the more correct way to do this would be to separate
the statements that are used in the condition from the statements that
are not used in the condition.
if(test())
test2();
Since test2's return statement isn't used for anything means to me that
it doesn't belong in the conditional statement.
