On 5/31/11 1:36 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
eles wrote:
== Quote from Andrei Alexandrescu (seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org)'s
article
On 5/31/11 11:10 AM, eles wrote:
I hope some day someone would not have to write a paper like
http://
drdobbs.com/blogs/cpp/228701625 but targetting... D's biggest
mistake
was to use open-limit on the right.
I sure wish that were the biggest mistake! :o)
Andrei
Maybe you are right and there are others, too.
Is off-topic, but I won't understand why D did not choose to
explicitly declare intentions of "break" or "fall" after branches in
switch statements (while dropping implicit "fall").
It won't break existing or inherited (from C) code. It will just
signal that it is illegal and force the programmer to revise it and
to make sure it behaves as intended.
In my understanding, you use switch if you want fall through somewhere and if()
else if() else ... otherwise. (or you remember to break properly)
Yes, it can cause bugs. The other possibility would be to add excessive
verbosity.
(Have a look into the Eiffel programming language.)
I am happy with how Ds switch works, but I understand your concerns too.
Timon
I think a better guideline is to use switch if you have choices of
similar likelihood and if/else chains otherwise.
This discussion has been carried before. People have collected metrics
about their code and others'. It turned out that even Walter, who
perceives using fall through "all the time" was factually wrong (see
e.g.
http://www.digitalmars.com/pnews/read.php?server=news.digitalmars.com&group=digitalmars.D&artnum=101125).
The evidence collected makes it clear to any reasonable observer that
enforcing flow of control statements after code in case labels would
mark a net improvement for D. How big? Probably not bigger than
operating other improvements. But definitely not negligible.
Andrei
