I use Rust a reasonable amount, and the 'unused variable',
'unused field' and 'unused item' family of lints help a great
deal in picking up mistakes early, especially when refactoring.
Don't ask me to cite specific examples though - because they are
enabled by default the issues are usually
On Sunday, 24 August 2014 at 02:23:11 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 15:48:03 +
Idan Arye via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
How about unused arguments in lambda expressions?
also, make compiler accept 'auto' in lambdas. i'm sure it
should. and
On Sun, 24 Aug 2014 19:39:31 +
Idan Arye via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
Currenly foreach does not accept type-without-argument -
`foreach(int; [1,2,3])` is a compiler error - so that's much
bigger a change than adding argument-less type inference for
lambdas.
ah,
On Saturday, 23 August 2014 at 04:07:58 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 03:50:13 +
via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
- versioning
refactor it, so that shared code goes to separate functions.
nested
functions especially helpful here. i'm used to
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 15:48:03 +
Idan Arye via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
How about unused arguments in lambda expressions?
also, make compiler accept 'auto' in lambdas. i'm sure it should. and
it should accept 'auto' in foreach(). it should also allow foreach like
this:
Apparently there is evidence that unused variables in C-like
languages correlate with bugs:
https://kev.inburke.com/slides/errors/#error-correlations
One problem with ruling out some classes of unused variables
(like unused function arguments, unused private module-level
variables, unused
On Friday, 22 August 2014 at 19:07:24 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Another solution is to leave such tests out of the core
compiler, and put them in a lint tool that you run when you
think your code is in good shape.
https://github.com/Hackerpilot/Dscanner
The unused variable and unused parameter
Brian Schott:
The unused variable and unused parameter checks have existed
since May. As far as I know it only gives false positives if
mixin statements are present.
Another interesting feature is similar to -Wsuggest-final-types
and -Wsuggest-final-methods. They give warnings when there is
On 08/22/2014 09:07 PM, bearophile wrote:
Apparently there is evidence that unused variables in C-like languages
correlate with bugs:
https://kev.inburke.com/slides/errors/#error-correlations
...
http://xkcd.com/552/
Timon Gehr:
http://xkcd.com/552/
What better alternative do you suggest in practice? The only
better solution I remember that was used for a language design is
the : added to Python after some controlled experiments done on
users.
Relying on experimental correlations (if the analysis is
On 8/22/14, 6:46 PM, bearophile wrote:
Currently a group of people are trying to design a language pushing to
the extreme the idea of design by committee, it's future a peer reviewed
language meant to be used for scientific programming. I've taken a look
at its syntax and I was not happy with
Ary Borenszweig:
What language is that?
I don't remember its name, of course.
I have just scanned the last few months of the LambdaTheUltimate
blog without success.
Bye,
bearophile
On 08/23/2014 01:32 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
you seemed to suggest in the OT.
OP
On 08/22/2014 11:46 PM, bearophile wrote:
Timon Gehr:
http://xkcd.com/552/
...
My point is just that this correlation is not a strong data point
supporting putting effort into elimination of unused variables. It is
possible that all this will accomplish is that unused variables will no
On Friday, 22 August 2014 at 23:32:54 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
The correlation only indicates that poor code tends to have
more unused variables. If one eliminates unused variables just
for the sake of eliminating unused variables, code quality will
most likely not magically increase.
I would
On 08/23/2014 02:03 AM, Brian Schott wrote:
On Friday, 22 August 2014 at 23:32:54 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
The correlation only indicates that poor code tends to have more
unused variables. If one eliminates unused variables just for the sake
of eliminating unused variables, code quality will
On Fri, 22 Aug 2014 21:46:44 +
bearophile via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
What better alternative do you suggest in practice?
don't declare unused variables. really, this is extremely easy. my 15+
years of expirience in writing projects of different scale shows that
good
On Saturday, 23 August 2014 at 02:48:15 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
don't declare unused variables. really, this is extremely easy.
my 15+
years of expirience in writing projects of different scale
What about:
- versioning
- debugging (commenting out debugging code)
- virtual
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 03:50:13 +
via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
- versioning
refactor it, so that shared code goes to separate functions. nested
functions especially helpful here. i'm used to this GCC extension.
- debugging (commenting out debugging code)
why comment it
On Saturday, 23 August 2014 at 04:07:58 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 03:50:13 +
via Digitalmars-d digitalmars-d@puremagic.com wrote:
- versioning
refactor it, so that shared code goes to separate functions.
nested
functions especially helpful here. i'm used to
20 matches
Mail list logo
