http://groups.google.com/group/net.lang.c/msg/66008138e07aa94c
>Many people (even Brian Kernighan?) have said that the worst feature
of C is that switches don't break automatically before each case label.
Oh god, that's from 1984, and even today we're struggling with this
bullshit in the mos
I have already asked about this topic here months ago, but now I know a bit
more OOP, so I can raise the bar for myself a bit. So now I consider class
inheritance too. I am trying to write "correct" equality Methods.
I have read this nice article about equality in Java, the things it says can be
I get this error with dmd 1.045. The _errno seems to be with the
DAllegro (http://www.dsource.org/projects/dallegro) library. And the 42
one to do with some thing of mine.
>>
OPTLINK (R) for Win32 Release 8.00.1
Copyright (C) Digital Mars 1989-2004 All rights reserved.
C:\jpro\dmd45\windows\b
Hello grauzone,
http://groups.google.com/group/net.lang.c/msg/66008138e07aa94c
Many people (even Brian Kernighan?) have said that the worst feature
of C is that switches don't break automatically before each case
label.
Oh god, that's from 1984, and even today we're struggling with this
bulls
BCS wrote:
Hello grauzone,
http://groups.google.com/group/net.lang.c/msg/66008138e07aa94c
Many people (even Brian Kernighan?) have said that the worst feature
of C is that switches don't break automatically before each case
label.
Oh god, that's from 1984, and even today we're struggling wit
Hello grauzone,
BCS wrote:
Hello grauzone,
http://groups.google.com/group/net.lang.c/msg/66008138e07aa94c
Many people (even Brian Kernighan?) have said that the worst feature
of C is that switches don't break automatically before each case
label.
Oh god, that's from 1984, and even today w
grauzone wrote:
BCS wrote:
Hello grauzone,
http://groups.google.com/group/net.lang.c/msg/66008138e07aa94c
Many people (even Brian Kernighan?) have said that the worst feature
of C is that switches don't break automatically before each case
label.
Oh god, that's from 1984, and even today we'
>> What kind of fall-throughs were these?
>>
>> A:
>>
>> case value1:
>> case value2:
>> case valueN:
>> code1();
>> break;
>>
>> B:
>>
>> case value1:
>> code1();
>> case value2:
>> code2();
>> break;
>
> The solution is to forbid fallthrough, and change the switch syntax:
>
>
Saaa wrote:
What kind of fall-throughs were these?
A:
case value1:
case value2:
case valueN:
code1();
break;
B:
case value1:
code1();
case value2:
code2();
break;
The solution is to forbid fallthrough, and change the switch syntax:
switch(value) {
case 1:
case 2:
//
>>> What's wrong with that?
>>
>> Doesn't support B :)
>>
>> How about a warning instead?
>
> The idea is that it not supporting B is something good.
I know this is your idea, but as BCS doesn't support this idea.
You should have replied to him iso grauzone.
I personally never had any problems wit
Saaa wrote:
What's wrong with that?
Doesn't support B :)
How about a warning instead?
The idea is that it not supporting B is something good.
I know this is your idea, but as BCS doesn't support this idea.
How do you know? BCS didn't reply to my idea.
You should have replied to him iso gr
> How do you know? BCS didn't reply to my idea.
Your idea was to give an error on the case (B) he uses. Or did I miss
something?
Saaa wrote:
How do you know? BCS didn't reply to my idea.
Your idea was to give an error on the case (B) he uses. Or did I miss
something?
You missed the alternative syntax to get the same behaviour. But it's a
very subtle difference.
> You missed the alternative syntax to get the same behaviour. But it's a
> very subtle difference.
Do you mean the multiple cases?
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/statement.html#SwitchStatement
Saaa wrote:
You missed the alternative syntax to get the same behaviour. But it's a
very subtle difference.
Do you mean the multiple cases?
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/statement.html#SwitchStatement
Yes, but make the "multiple cases" the *only* way to make case
statements fallthrough.
> Yes, but make the "multiple cases" the *only* way to make case
> statements fallthrough. That would be the change.
That is the same as giving an error on case B, right?
I mean, the syntax stays the same.
Saaa wrote:
Yes, but make the "multiple cases" the *only* way to make case
statements fallthrough. That would be the change.
That is the same as giving an error on case B, right?
Well, yes, but you also have to prepare your mind for the change. This
is a huge step.
(nah, just kidding, you'
> Well, yes, but you also have to prepare your mind for the change. This
> is a huge step.
;)
(nah, just kidding, you're right, I didn't realize it :-P)
Ok, enough kidding around, lets get back to you helping me with 'code
generalization' :P
Saaa wrote:
(nah, just kidding, you're right, I didn't realize it :-P)
Ok, enough kidding around, lets get back to you helping me with 'code
generalization' :P
Write a lexer and a parser.
> Write a lexer and a parser.
how do you mean?
Earlier today, I tried to use the D compiler for .NET from
http://dnet.codeplex.com/
Beyond compilation of the compiler, I found zero instructions on what to do
next. How do I integrate the compiler into the .NET framework/visual
studio? I'd like to be able to add D files to existing solution
Jason House wrote:
> Earlier today, I tried to use the D compiler for .NET from
> http://dnet.codeplex.com/
>
> Beyond compilation of the compiler, I found zero instructions on what to do
> next. How do I integrate the compiler into the .NET framework/visual
> studio? I'd like to be able to
Hello Ary,
Saaa wrote:
You missed the alternative syntax to get the same behaviour. But
it's a very subtle difference.
Do you mean the multiple cases?
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/statement.html#SwitchStatement
Yes, but make the "multiple cases" the *only* way to make case
statements fa
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 16:28:58 + (UTC), BCS wrote:
> Hello grauzone,
>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/net.lang.c/msg/66008138e07aa94c
>>>
>> Many people (even Brian Kernighan?) have said that the worst feature
>> of C is that switches don't break automatically before each case
>> label.
>>
Trass3r Wrote:
> Has anyone ever tried the tango ftp code?
> Nothing really works for me, even for simple cases.
>
> For example, when using ls() it gets stuck in parseMlstLine() cause the
> exception
> throw new FTPException("CLIENT: Bad syntax in MLSx response", "501");
> doesn't get caught.
>
Hello Derek,
On Tue, 9 Jun 2009 16:28:58 + (UTC), BCS wrote:
I'm sorry, you don't have my sympathy on this one. There are to many
place I've used fall throught to chuck it out.
[...]
However, additionally in the default format you can use
'fallthru' to let flow drop to the next case
28 matches
Mail list logo
