I have several instance of cases like this :
switch(c) {
case 'U', 'u' :
case 'L', 'l' :
// code . . .
}
dmd from master complains about it (Error: switch case
fallthrough - use 'goto case;' if intended). It used to work.
Note that in that case, the fix is triv
On 2/17/13 11:10 AM, deadalnix wrote:
I have several instance of cases like this :
switch(c) {
case 'U', 'u' :
case 'L', 'l' :
// code . . .
}
dmd from master complains about it (Error: switch case fallthrough - use
'goto case;' if intended). It used to work.
Note that in that case, the fix is
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 11:10:58 -0500, deadalnix wrote:
I have several instance of cases like this :
switch(c) {
case 'U', 'u' :
case 'L', 'l' :
// code . . .
}
dmd from master complains about it (Error: switch case fallthrough - use
'goto case;' if intended). I
On Sunday, 17 February 2013 at 16:10:59 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
dmd from master complains about it (Error: switch case
fallthrough - use 'goto case;' if intended). It used to work.
Does it happen on the staging branch as well?
David
On 17/02/2013 16:10, deadalnix wrote:
I have several instance of cases like this :
switch(c) {
case 'U', 'u' :
case 'L', 'l' :
// code . . .
}
dmd from master complains about it (Error: switch case fallthrough - use 'goto
case;' if
intended). It used to work.
Implicit fal
On Sunday, 17 February 2013 at 17:16:44 UTC, David Nadlinger
wrote:
On Sunday, 17 February 2013 at 16:10:59 UTC, deadalnix wrote:
dmd from master complains about it (Error: switch case
fallthrough - use 'goto case;' if intended). It used to work.
Does it happen on the staging branch as well?
On Sunday, February 17, 2013 17:26:01 Stewart Gordon wrote:
> On 17/02/2013 16:10, deadalnix wrote:
> > I have several instance of cases like this :
> >
> > switch(c) {
> >
> > case 'U', 'u' :
> >
> > case 'L', 'l' :
> > // code . . .
> >
> > }
> >
> > dmd from master c
On 2/17/13, deadalnix wrote:
> It used to work.
Are you sure it's a regression?
2.062:
$ dmd test.d
>
$ dmd -w test.d
> test.d(8): Error: switch case fallthrough - use 'goto case;' if intended
> test.d(10): Error: switch case fallthrough - use 'goto default;' if intended
I've tested from 2.062
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 22:03:33 +0100
Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 2/17/13, deadalnix wrote:
> > It used to work.
>
> Are you sure it's a regression?
>
> 2.062:
> $ dmd test.d
> >
>
> $ dmd -w test.d
> > test.d(8): Error: switch case fallthrough - use 'goto case;' if
> > intended test.d(10): Erro
On 2/17/13, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> Hmm, that brings up a different (though minor) issue: If it's a
> warning, why does it say "Error"?
I can see in the source there's a check for the -w flag but then an
error is raised by mistake. This should either be an error regardless
of -w or be changed in
On 2/17/13, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 2/17/13, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> Hmm, that brings up a different (though minor) issue: If it's a
>> warning, why does it say "Error"?
>
> I can see in the source there's a check for the -w flag but then an
> error is raised by mistake. This should either
On 2/17/13, deadalnix wrote:
> I have several instance of cases like this :
>
> switch(c) {
> case 'U', 'u' :
> case 'L', 'l' :
> // code . . .
> }
Found the report: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6552
On Sunday, February 17, 2013 16:08:13 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 22:03:33 +0100
>
> Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> > On 2/17/13, deadalnix wrote:
> > > It used to work.
> >
> > Are you sure it's a regression?
> >
> > 2.062:
> > $ dmd test.d
> >
> >
> > $ dmd -w test.d
> >
> > >
On 2/17/13, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> Probably because -w turns warnings into errors. That's its whole schtick.
Really? Man this is confusing..
> However, -wi also appears to say "Error," which definitely isn't correct.
Ok good to know. I'm making a pull for these fixes.
On 17/02/2013 20:07, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Implicit fall through shouldn't have been allowed from the beginning. It
would appear that this has finally been banned.
Implicit fallthrough is a warning when a case stament is non-empty, but if
it's empty (as in the example), then there is no war
On 2/18/13, Stewart Gordon wrote:
> There's no such thing as an "empty case statement", unless you mean the case
> where the
> ScopeStatementList is ";" or "{}" by itself. Look at the grammar
> carefully.
>
> So by the current spec, the first example is a syntax error, since a
> CaseStatement
> e
On 17/02/2013 21:46, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Hmm, that brings up a different (though minor) issue: If it's a
warning, why does it say "Error"?
Probably because -w turns warnings into errors. That's its whole schtick.
No, the whole schtick of -w is that it causes warnings to be emitted at all
On 18/02/2013 01:10, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
The grammar and spec are often broken. The OP sample is completely valid.
The whole point of a spec is to define the language. So if the spec makes some code
illegal, then (at least for the time being) it is illegal.
Stewart.
On Monday, February 18, 2013 01:04:41 Stewart Gordon wrote:
> On 17/02/2013 20:07, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>
>
> >> Implicit fall through shouldn't have been allowed from the beginning. It
> >> would appear that this has finally been banned.
> >
> > Implicit fallthrough is a warning when a case
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 20:28:51 -0500, Stewart Gordon
wrote:
On 18/02/2013 01:10, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
The grammar and spec are often broken. The OP sample is completely
valid.
The whole point of a spec is to define the language. So if the spec
makes some code illegal, then (at least f
On 18/02/2013 01:30, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Monday, February 18, 2013 01:04:41 Stewart Gordon wrote:
On 17/02/2013 20:07, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Implicit fallthrough is a warning when a case stament is non-empty, but if
it's empty (as in the example), then there is no warning.
What ve
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 22:53:13 +0100
Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> On 2/17/13, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> > Probably because -w turns warnings into errors. That's its whole
> > schtick.
>
> Really? Man this is confusing..
>
The -w is just simply the "treat warnings as errors" switch (and of
course it
On 18/02/2013 01:21, Stewart Gordon wrote:
On 17/02/2013 21:46, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
Probably because -w turns warnings into errors. That's its whole schtick.
No, the whole schtick of -w is that it causes warnings to be emitted at all.
It's a quirk
of the way it was designed that it tre
On Monday, February 25, 2013 01:42:10 Stewart Gordon wrote:
> On 18/02/2013 01:21, Stewart Gordon wrote:
> > On 17/02/2013 21:46, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>
>
> >> Probably because -w turns warnings into errors. That's its whole schtick.
> >
> > No, the whole schtick of -w is that it causes warni
On 25/02/2013 02:01, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
There's a more important way in which it isn't quite "treat warnings as
errors": if you use an IsExpression to test the validity of a snippet of
code, a pass with warnings must still be a pass. Otherwise, you'll get
code that compiles with or without
25 matches
Mail list logo
