"bearophile" <bearophileh...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:hb17v3$1e4...@digitalmars.com...
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
Usually you're
all for adding features (hey, you just brought up the switch again!
isn't that ironic?) and cleaning up bad parts of the language,
Sorry, I'm not a computer scientist, and surely I am not a language
designer (especially for a C++-class language), so you may see some
contradictions in what I sometimes say :-)
I have brought up the switch again because I was nervous, after spending
some time to find a bug caused by the current design of the switch.
There are classes of bugs that aren't easy to avoid, but I think with a
less bug-prone switch I may avoid bugs like the one I have removed from my
code.
One of the most basic part of the Zen of D is to help programmers to avoid
bugs, where possible.
I hate the idea of having 3 different switches in the language (that's why
I was not happy to see the static switch, because a better redesign of the
*second* switch was in order). But the current situation of switch is not
good for D yet.
Bye,
bearophile
Since it seems there are fundamental changes already going into D 2.0, I
agree with bearophile. I don't like the syntax of switch, which is based on
the old C switch syntax. Yuck! But I digress, this is not on topic.
-Craig
