On 08/21/2011 11:02 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"bearophile"<bearophileh...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:j2rh7g$2tfq$1...@digitalmars.com...
To this innocent-looking D code, do you see the problem?
void foo(Pair[] sol) {
if (isSolution(sol[$-1]))
if (!best.length || sol.length< best.length)
best = sol.dup;
else
foreach (next; alternatives(sol[$-1]))
if (!canFind(sol, next))
foo(sol ~ [next]);
}
That's why I always use braces to avoid the construct "if(cond) stmt;
if(cond) stmt; else..."
There is a situation where I'd like D to require braces:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4375
That's a fantastic idea. It basically checks exactly what I've been relying
on convention for.
*Only* potential problem I see with it is if someone wants to do this:
if(blah blah blah)
if(useFoo) foo(); else bar();
else
...
That's fairly sensible code. Although I admit I've never come across a
situation where I actually wanted to do that. So personally I wouldn't mind
giving up the ability to do that.
Well, it would not have to be disallowed. The rule could be like this:
Parse with the normal dangling else rule. If an if statement without an
else clause is found, examine the then clause. If the then clause is an
if statement with an else clause, error.
So if(c1)if(c2) x; else y; would be disallowed, but
if(c1)if(c2) x; else y; else z; would be allowed.
