Andrej Mitrovic:
> Got it. Bug is reported.
Good.
> You can compare anything in an if statement, so why is switch more limited?
switch has stronger requirements than a series of if statements and its uses
such extra information to create assembly code that's more efficient than a
series of i
Andrej Mitrovic Wrote:
> Got it. Bug is reported.
>
> Btw, is there a specific reason why non-const values are not allowed?
>
> I mean, doesn't a switch statement like this:
> switch(value)
> {
> case 1:
> foo(); break;
> case 2:
> bar(); break;
> default:
> d
Got it. Bug is reported.
Btw, is there a specific reason why non-const values are not allowed?
I mean, doesn't a switch statement like this:
switch(value)
{
case 1:
foo(); break;
case 2:
bar(); break;
default:
doo();
}
expand to:
if (value == 1)
foo();
el
Andrej Mitrovic Wrote:
> On 4/19/11, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> > Yes bug. Not this part though
> >
> >> switch (x = foo(y))
> >
>
> Yeah that I know.
>
> Do you happen to know if this bug is already filed or should I file it?
I would not know. As long as you do a best guess search on what yo
*I've searched bugzilla and couldn't find an entry for this particular case.
On 4/19/11, Jesse Phillips wrote:
> Yes bug. Not this part though
>
>> switch (x = foo(y))
>
Yeah that I know.
Do you happen to know if this bug is already filed or should I file it?
Andrej Mitrovic Wrote:
> int foo(ref int y)
> {
> y = 5;
> return y;
> }
>
> void main()
> {
> int x = 1;
> int y = 2;
>
> switch (x = foo(y))
> {
> case y:
> writeln("x == y");
> default:
> }
>
> assert(x == 5);
> assert(y
int foo(ref int y)
{
y = 5;
return y;
}
void main()
{
int x = 1;
int y = 2;
switch (x = foo(y))
{
case y:
writeln("x == y");
default:
}
assert(x == 5);
assert(y == 5);
}
According to the docs:
The case expressions must all
