On 2011-08-15 21:17, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 15:00:03 -0400, Walter Bright
<newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote:
On 8/15/2011 3:54 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
'When the last ExpressionStatement in a function body is missing the
';', it is
implicitly returned.'
This has been proposed several times before, it was also proposed for
C++0x. The difficulty is it makes having a ; or not substantially
alter the semantics. The history of these languages is that the
presence or absence of ; can be hard to spot, as in:
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++);
... do this ...
which has cost at least one expert developer I know an entire
afternoon staring at it convinced there was a compiler bug because his
loop executed only once.
(And this is why D disallows this syntax.)
Not that I'm for or against this issue, I think comparing this proposal
to the for + empty statement is completely disproportionate.
What is going to happen if someone adds an extra ';' ? Compiler error
("no return statement")
What is going to happen if someone accidentally does not put a semicolon
on the last statement? If it's not the correct return type, it's an
error, otherwise, it's likely what the person wanted. It's not like a
return can happen in the middle, it *only* comes in to play as the last
line of the function.
I agree with others that if this were to be implemented, only allowing
the short form on single-expression functions would be a good
conservative start. But again, I don't frequently use delegates like
this, so I'm somewhat neutral.
-Steve
The reason I don't use delegates as much as I would like to is just
because of things like this, i.e. the syntax is too verbose.
--
/Jacob Carlborg
