On 08/15/2011 11:15 PM, Andrew Wiley wrote:
On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
<seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org <mailto:seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org>>
wrote:
On 8/15/11 2:19 PM, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
On 2011-08-15 21:00, Walter Bright 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.)
Can't we always automatically return the last expression, even if it
ends with a semicolon?
Then two semicolons mean return void :o).
If you want void, you have to use this as your last expression:
...- --- .. -..;
Two semicolons means the last statement is an empty statement, so
Andrei's suggestion would be sensible if the last expression was
implicitly returned all the time ;)
@Topic:
So, I'm not convinced that accidents related to writing one surplus ; or
leaving one ; away would lead to hard to find and impossible to
statically catch bugs. (After all, such accidents would *always* make it
into the type signature of the function.) As this apparently has been
discussed before, does anyone actually have a real world example where
it could be shown to be problematic?
