https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16224
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P4
--
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16224
--- Comment #7 from Andrei Alexandrescu ---
(In reply to Johan Engelen from comment #6)
> > The coverage analyzer marks the line with "while (0);" as uncovered,
> > although that is an useless tidbit.
>
> I don't think it is useless. In the OP exa
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16224
--- Comment #6 from Johan Engelen ---
> The coverage analyzer marks the line with "while (0);" as uncovered,
> although that is an useless tidbit.
I don't think it is useless. In the OP example, while(0) is uncovered because
there is never a "fall
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16224
--- Comment #5 from Andrei Alexandrescu ---
(In reply to Steven Schveighoffer from comment #4)
> I don't see why while(true) is any worse.
>
> Essentially:
>
> while(true)
> {
> ...
> break;
> }
>
> Is the same as the do...while(0)
Yah, switch is
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16224
Steven Schveighoffer changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||schvei...@yahoo.com
--- Comment #4 fr
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16224
--- Comment #3 from Andrei Alexandrescu ---
For clarity, I'll paste the code (fixed to do something useful, i.e. compute
the cube of an int) and the listing:
int cube(int x)
{
do
{
if (x == 0)
break;
if (x == 1)
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16224
--- Comment #2 from hst...@quickfur.ath.cx ---
Nevermind, I get it now. Sorry for the noise.
--
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=16224
hst...@quickfur.ath.cx changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hst...@quickfur.ath.cx
--- Comment #
