www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Extra semicolons, Errors or not ?

reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Are any of these extra semicolons really errors ?


 void f()
 {
 
 };
 
 class C
 {
 
 };
 
 struct S
 {
   char c;
 };
 
 union U
 {
   char c;
 };
 
 void main()
 {
   if (false)
   {
 
   };
 
   foreach(char c; "")
   {
 
   };
 
   ;
   null;
 }



They all pass the current D compiler silently...

--anders

PS. Not the "char c;" one, but the rest of them.
Feb 20 2005
next sibling parent reply Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:22:49 +0100, Anders F Björklund wrote:


 Are any of these extra semicolons really errors ?
 

 void f()
 {
 
 };
 
 class C
 {
 
 };
 
 struct S
 {
   char c;
 };
 
 union U
 {
   char c;
 };
 
 void main()
 {
   if (false)
   {
 
   };
 
   foreach(char c; "")
   {
 
   };
 
   ;
   null;
 }



 They all pass the current D compiler silently...
 



Not to me ;-) But a naked semi-colon and the 'null;' is fairly meaningless
to point where one may think that the coder has made a mistake.

However note that 

   if (true);  

   foreach(char c; "");

   while(true);

are compiler errors.

-- 
Derek
Melbourne, Australia
21/02/2005 10:35:03 AM
Feb 20 2005
parent reply "Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> writes:
"Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message 
news:fewqzt2viqdl.btneu9e85pr2$.dlg 40tude.net...

 On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:22:49 +0100, Anders F Björklund wrote:


 Are any of these extra semicolons really errors ?


 void f()
 {

 };

 class C
 {

 };

 struct S
 {
   char c;
 };

 union U
 {
   char c;
 };

 void main()
 {
   if (false)
   {

   };

   foreach(char c; "")
   {

   };

   ;
   null;
 }



 They all pass the current D compiler silently...



 Not to me ;-) But a naked semi-colon and the 'null;' is fairly 
 meaningless
 to point where one may think that the coder has made a mistake.

 However note that

   if (true);

   foreach(char c; "");

   while(true);

 are compiler errors.



I presume that one needs to do

    if(true)
    {}

    foreach(char c; "")
    {}

    while(true)
    {}

??
Feb 20 2005
parent reply "Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> writes:
Yep, or, in the more common cases:

foreach (char c; "")
    continue;

while (true)
    continue;

Which makes it a lot cleaner and more readable imho (but obviously 
cannot be done for if.)

-[Unknown]



 "Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message 
 news:fewqzt2viqdl.btneu9e85pr2$.dlg 40tude.net...
 

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:22:49 +0100, Anders F Björklund wrote:



Are any of these extra semicolons really errors ?



void f()
{

};

class C
{

};

struct S
{
  char c;
};

union U
{
  char c;
};

void main()
{
  if (false)
  {

  };

  foreach(char c; "")
  {

  };

  ;
  null;
}



They all pass the current D compiler silently...



Not to me ;-) But a naked semi-colon and the 'null;' is fairly 
meaningless
to point where one may think that the coder has made a mistake.

However note that

  if (true);

  foreach(char c; "");

  while(true);

are compiler errors.



 
 I presume that one needs to do
 
     if(true)
     {}
 
     foreach(char c; "")
     {}
 
     while(true)
     {}
 
 ??
Feb 20 2005
next sibling parent reply "Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> writes:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:07:59 -0800, Unknown W. Brackets  
<unknown simplemachines.org> wrote:

 Yep, or, in the more common cases:

 foreach (char c; "")
     continue;

 while (true)
     continue;

 Which makes it a lot cleaner and more readable imho (but obviously  
 cannot be done for if.)

 -[Unknown]



<snip rest of upside down reply>

Or we could add a "noop" expression, to more exactly specify the  
programmers intent.
eg.

foreach(char c; "") noop;
while(true) noop;
if (true) noop;

Regan
Feb 20 2005
parent reply "Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> writes:
I would think that most compilers would be able to tell this:

while (true)
{
}

Is the same as this:

while (true)
	continue;

So a "noop" wouldn't be required... and, in most cases, when you do:

if (true)
{
}

Well, I can only imagine that being useful for an else/else if 
simlpification, which is ugly imho and hopefully is optimized out anyway.

I can't really think of a case where a "noop" would be required... and 
anyway, couldn't you do this:

if (true)
	0;

-[Unknown]



 On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:07:59 -0800, Unknown W. Brackets  
 <unknown simplemachines.org> wrote:
 

 Yep, or, in the more common cases:

 foreach (char c; "")
     continue;

 while (true)
     continue;

 Which makes it a lot cleaner and more readable imho (but obviously  
 cannot be done for if.)

 -[Unknown]



 
 <snip rest of upside down reply>
 
 Or we could add a "noop" expression, to more exactly specify the  
 programmers intent.
 eg.
 
 foreach(char c; "") noop;
 while(true) noop;
 if (true) noop;
 
 Regan
Feb 20 2005
parent reply "Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> writes:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:55:13 -0800, Unknown W. Brackets  
<unknown simplemachines.org> wrote:

 I would think that most compilers would be able to tell this:

 while (true)
 {
 }

 Is the same as this:

 while (true)
 	continue;



Maybe, but why should they have to?
Having several ways to achieve the same thing is generally a bad idea.


 So a "noop" wouldn't be required... and, in most cases, when you do:

 if (true)
 {
 }

 Well, I can only imagine that being useful for an else/else if  
 simlpification, which is ugly imho and hopefully is optimized out anyway.

 I can't really think of a case where a "noop" would be required...



That's because you're thinking of this idea in different terms.

I'm not trying to suggest noop is 'required' in order to achieve some  
program logic, what I'm suggesting is that it might improve readability  
and avoid bugs.


 and anyway, couldn't you do this:

 if (true)
 	0;



I have no idea. It's beside the point I am trying to make.

Is using "noop" more obvious that the various connotations you've shown so  
far for telling other programmers that you intend for nothing to happen at  
that point in the code?

[For]
- If there is only 1 way, then once you learn that 1 way, it's obvious.
- It's unlikely you'll type "noop" by accident and if the other methods  
are made illegal then you cannot accidently type a no-op i.e.

for(s = bf; *s != '\0'; s++);  <- accidental semicolon here
    length++

[Against]
- One more keyword to learn.

Regan


 -[Unknown]



 On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 17:07:59 -0800, Unknown W. Brackets   
 <unknown simplemachines.org> wrote:


 Yep, or, in the more common cases:

 foreach (char c; "")
     continue;

 while (true)
     continue;

 Which makes it a lot cleaner and more readable imho (but obviously   
 cannot be done for if.)

 -[Unknown]



  Or we could add a "noop" expression, to more exactly specify the   
 programmers intent.
 eg.
  foreach(char c; "") noop;
 while(true) noop;
 if (true) noop;
  Regan
Feb 20 2005
next sibling parent reply brad domain.invalid writes:
 [Against]
 - One more keyword to learn.



Ie, noop is pure syntactic sugar.
the NOP instruction in an assembler instruction that is often used to 
control pipeline flushing, etc.

I would hope anyone needing a genuine NOP would check the assembler 
output, but maybe not.

Brad
Feb 20 2005
parent "Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> writes:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 16:16:47 +1300, <brad domain.invalid> wrote:

 [Against]
 - One more keyword to learn.



 Ie, noop is pure syntactic sugar.
 the NOP instruction in an assembler instruction that is often used to  
 control pipeline flushing, etc.

 I would hope anyone needing a genuine NOP would check the assembler  
 output, but maybe not.



Good point, is there another better keyword maybe?
or do you think it's a bad idea in general?

Regan
Feb 20 2005
prev sibling parent "Jarrett Billingsley" <kb3ctd2 yahoo.com> writes:
 Is using "noop" more obvious that the various connotations you've shown so 
 far for telling other programmers that you intend for nothing to happen at 
 that point in the code?



How about a comment?  ;)

if(x)
{
    // nothing happens here.  really.
}
Feb 20 2005
prev sibling parent reply "Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> writes:
I have a personal coding standard that says an empty block *must* be 
represented with

    {}

and not

{
}

or

{;}

or

;

etc.

This makes it very easy to not get caught up on false +ves. (Of course, 
false -ves are poss. <G>)

But since it's a personal one, others may have something different that 
works equally well ...



"Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> wrote in message 
news:cvbc9d$129h$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Yep, or, in the more common cases:

 foreach (char c; "")
    continue;

 while (true)
    continue;

 Which makes it a lot cleaner and more readable imho (but obviously 
 cannot be done for if.)

 -[Unknown]



 "Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message 
 news:fewqzt2viqdl.btneu9e85pr2$.dlg 40tude.net...


On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:22:49 +0100, Anders F Björklund wrote:



Are any of these extra semicolons really errors ?



void f()
{

};

class C
{

};

struct S
{
  char c;
};

union U
{
  char c;
};

void main()
{
  if (false)
  {

  };

  foreach(char c; "")
  {

  };

  ;
  null;
}



They all pass the current D compiler silently...



Not to me ;-) But a naked semi-colon and the 'null;' is fairly 
meaningless
to point where one may think that the coder has made a mistake.

However note that

  if (true);

  foreach(char c; "");

  while(true);

are compiler errors.




 I presume that one needs to do

     if(true)
     {}

     foreach(char c; "")
     {}

     while(true)
     {}

 ??
Feb 20 2005
next sibling parent reply "Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> writes:
What do you think of creating a keyword for it, and making the rest  
illegal.
eg.

if (true)
     <keyword>

instead of all the possible premutations.

; has been made illegal in cases like the above as it's a source of bugs,  
having a keyword does the same, plus makes the code more obvious to others.

Can the compiler optimise if it's told this explicitly?

At the cost of adding another keyword.

I suggested "noop" but Brad suggested it might get confused with the NOP  
assembler instruction.

This was really just a random thought passing through my head, I'm not  
sure there is a problem that needs solving, the possible error cases i.e.  
using ';' are illegal the rest are unlikely to be done accidently and make  
sense to most people (everyone?)

Regan

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 13:56:21 +1100, Matthew  
<admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote:

 I have a personal coding standard that says an empty block *must* be
 represented with

     {}

 and not

 {
 }

 or

 {;}

 or

 ;

 etc.

 This makes it very easy to not get caught up on false +ves. (Of course,
 false -ves are poss. <G>)

 But since it's a personal one, others may have something different that
 works equally well ...



 "Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> wrote in message
 news:cvbc9d$129h$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Yep, or, in the more common cases:

 foreach (char c; "")
    continue;

 while (true)
    continue;

 Which makes it a lot cleaner and more readable imho (but obviously
 cannot be done for if.)

 -[Unknown]



 "Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message
 news:fewqzt2viqdl.btneu9e85pr2$.dlg 40tude.net...


 On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:22:49 +0100, Anders F Björklund wrote:



 Are any of these extra semicolons really errors ?



 void f()
 {

 };

 class C
 {

 };

 struct S
 {
  char c;
 };

 union U
 {
  char c;
 };

 void main()
 {
  if (false)
  {

  };

  foreach(char c; "")
  {

  };

  ;
  null;
 }



 They all pass the current D compiler silently...



 Not to me ;-) But a naked semi-colon and the 'null;' is fairly
 meaningless
 to point where one may think that the coder has made a mistake.

 However note that

  if (true);

  foreach(char c; "");

  while(true);

 are compiler errors.




 I presume that one needs to do

     if(true)
     {}

     foreach(char c; "")
     {}

     while(true)
     {}

 ??
Feb 20 2005
next sibling parent reply brad domain.invalid writes:
Regan Heath wrote:

 What do you think of creating a keyword for it, and making the rest  
 illegal.
 eg.
 
 if (true)
     <keyword>
 



comment it - ie:
while (wait_on_some_event () { /* do nothing */ };

I don't see that having a compiler keyword helps or hinders the 
programmer either way.

Brad
Feb 20 2005
parent reply "Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> writes:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 16:35:46 +1300, <brad domain.invalid> wrote:

 Regan Heath wrote:

 What do you think of creating a keyword for it, and making the rest   
 illegal.
 eg.
  if (true)
     <keyword>



 comment it - ie:
 while (wait_on_some_event () { /* do nothing */ };

 I don't see that having a compiler keyword helps or hinders the  
 programmer either way.



Sure, but A comment is not 'required'.

Regan
Feb 20 2005
parent reply Manfred Nowak <svv1999 hotmail.com> writes:
"Regan Heath" wrote:

[...]

 Sure, but A comment is not 'required'.




Nor is it a keyword: `if()op=op;'
-manfred
Feb 21 2005
parent "Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> writes:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 20:09:01 +0000 (UTC), Manfred Nowak  
<svv1999 hotmail.com> wrote:

 "Regan Heath" wrote:

 [...]

 Sure, but A comment is not 'required'.




 Nor is it a keyword: `if()op=op;'



Touche.. but it could be :)

Regan
Feb 21 2005
prev sibling next sibling parent "Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> writes:
"Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> wrote in message 
news:opsmi2tdqc23k2f5 ally...

 What do you think of creating a keyword for it, and making the rest 
 illegal.



Not much
Feb 20 2005
prev sibling parent reply John Reimer <brk_6502 yahoo.com> writes:
The way it is right now is sufficient {}.  Why make a new keyword for
this? There are plenty of other more important areas to concentrate on in
D.

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 16:33:03 +1300, Regan Heath wrote:


 What do you think of creating a keyword for it, and making the rest  
 illegal.
 eg.
 
 if (true)
      <keyword>
 
 instead of all the possible premutations.
 
 ; has been made illegal in cases like the above as it's a source of bugs,  
 having a keyword does the same, plus makes the code more obvious to others.
 
 Can the compiler optimise if it's told this explicitly?
 
 At the cost of adding another keyword.
 
 I suggested "noop" but Brad suggested it might get confused with the NOP  
 assembler instruction.
 
 This was really just a random thought passing through my head, I'm not  
 sure there is a problem that needs solving, the possible error cases i.e.  
 using ';' are illegal the rest are unlikely to be done accidently and make  
 sense to most people (everyone?)
 
 Regan
 
 On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 13:56:21 +1100, Matthew  
 <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote:

 I have a personal coding standard that says an empty block *must* be
 represented with

     {}

 and not

 {
 }

 or

 {;}

 or

 ;

 etc.

 This makes it very easy to not get caught up on false +ves. (Of course,
 false -ves are poss. <G>)

 But since it's a personal one, others may have something different that
 works equally well ...



 "Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> wrote in message
 news:cvbc9d$129h$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Yep, or, in the more common cases:

 foreach (char c; "")
    continue;

 while (true)
    continue;

 Which makes it a lot cleaner and more readable imho (but obviously
 cannot be done for if.)

 -[Unknown]



 "Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message
 news:fewqzt2viqdl.btneu9e85pr2$.dlg 40tude.net...


 On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:22:49 +0100, Anders F Björklund wrote:



 Are any of these extra semicolons really errors ?



 void f()
 {

 };

 class C
 {

 };

 struct S
 {
  char c;
 };

 union U
 {
  char c;
 };

 void main()
 {
  if (false)
  {

  };

  foreach(char c; "")
  {

  };

  ;
  null;
 }



 They all pass the current D compiler silently...



 Not to me ;-) But a naked semi-colon and the 'null;' is fairly
 meaningless
 to point where one may think that the coder has made a mistake.

 However note that

  if (true);

  foreach(char c; "");

  while(true);

 are compiler errors.




 I presume that one needs to do

     if(true)
     {}

     foreach(char c; "")
     {}

     while(true)
     {}

 ??
Feb 20 2005
parent reply "Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> writes:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 20:00:03 -0800, John Reimer <brk_6502 yahoo.com> wrote:

 The way it is right now is sufficient {}.



Cool.


 Why make a new keyword for
 this?



I was just asking.


 There are plenty of other more important areas to concentrate on in
 D.



Sure, and once they're done?

Regan



 On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 16:33:03 +1300, Regan Heath wrote:


 What do you think of creating a keyword for it, and making the rest
 illegal.
 eg.

 if (true)
      <keyword>

 instead of all the possible premutations.

 ; has been made illegal in cases like the above as it's a source of  
 bugs,
 having a keyword does the same, plus makes the code more obvious to  
 others.

 Can the compiler optimise if it's told this explicitly?

 At the cost of adding another keyword.

 I suggested "noop" but Brad suggested it might get confused with the NOP
 assembler instruction.

 This was really just a random thought passing through my head, I'm not
 sure there is a problem that needs solving, the possible error cases  
 i.e.
 using ';' are illegal the rest are unlikely to be done accidently and  
 make
 sense to most people (everyone?)

 Regan

 On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 13:56:21 +1100, Matthew
 <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> wrote:

 I have a personal coding standard that says an empty block *must* be
 represented with

     {}

 and not

 {
 }

 or

 {;}

 or

 ;

 etc.

 This makes it very easy to not get caught up on false +ves. (Of course,
 false -ves are poss. <G>)

 But since it's a personal one, others may have something different that
 works equally well ...



 "Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> wrote in message
 news:cvbc9d$129h$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Yep, or, in the more common cases:

 foreach (char c; "")
    continue;

 while (true)
    continue;

 Which makes it a lot cleaner and more readable imho (but obviously
 cannot be done for if.)

 -[Unknown]



 "Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> wrote in message
 news:fewqzt2viqdl.btneu9e85pr2$.dlg 40tude.net...


 On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 00:22:49 +0100, Anders F Björklund wrote:



 Are any of these extra semicolons really errors ?



 void f()
 {

 };

 class C
 {

 };

 struct S
 {
  char c;
 };

 union U
 {
  char c;
 };

 void main()
 {
  if (false)
  {

  };

  foreach(char c; "")
  {

  };

  ;
  null;
 }



 They all pass the current D compiler silently...



 Not to me ;-) But a naked semi-colon and the 'null;' is fairly
 meaningless
 to point where one may think that the coder has made a mistake.

 However note that

  if (true);

  foreach(char c; "");

  while(true);

 are compiler errors.




 I presume that one needs to do

     if(true)
     {}

     foreach(char c; "")
     {}

     while(true)
     {}

 ??
Feb 20 2005
parent reply zwang <nehzgnaw gmail.com> writes:
Regan Heath wrote:

 There are plenty of other more important areas to concentrate on in
 D.



 
 Sure, and once they're done?
 
 Regan




Once they're done, I bet there are already a load of other problems
more important than the cosmetic "noop" issue.
Feb 20 2005
next sibling parent John Reimer <brk_6502 yahoo.com> writes:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 12:28:37 +0800, zwang wrote:


 Regan Heath wrote:

 There are plenty of other more important areas to concentrate on in
 D.



 
 Sure, and once they're done?
 
 Regan



 
 Once they're done, I bet there are already a load of other problems
 more important than the cosmetic "noop" issue.



I tend to agree.
Feb 20 2005
prev sibling parent reply =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
zwang wrote:


 There are plenty of other more important areas to concentrate on in
 D.



 Sure, and once they're done?

 Regan



 Once they're done, I bet there are already a load of other problems
 more important than the cosmetic "noop" issue.



And we've been discussing those as well, both "high" and "low"...

I've commented in quite a few areas, like "void main", "writeln"
"str", "imaginary real", "Object.printf" and such important ones ?

This thread was just about a "new" brace style, using semicolons.

--anders
Feb 20 2005
parent reply MicroWizard <MicroWizard_member pathlink.com> writes:
Once we are so serious we have to choose the Python way :-)
..What code looks fine => that code works fine => any code that is
not so precise => must be wrong => compiler error...
(This is the opposite side and I really do not share this idea.)

When we finish to discuss "important D things" think a little bit!

Our common goal is to form D a language, which is easy to learn,
easy to use, easy to read and easy to understand but powerful
in any way we can imagine. How to do it is the question only.

A simple and unambigous syntax is real need. It makes the compiler
able to catch the most common mistakes...

Strong types, few automatic type conversion and a consequent runtime library
helps the compiler to detect the real point of error...

[...]

Regarding the original issue: my opinion is ...

for(...blablabla..)    is correct, the comment shows the intention
{
//
}

nop;                   is ugly and misleading, thumb down
(perhaps nop; statement could have other important meaning)

----------
Tamas Nagy

In article <cvc39u$1qnt$2 digitaldaemon.com>,
=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Anders_F_Bj=F6rklund?= says...

zwang wrote:


 There are plenty of other more important areas to concentrate on in



 Sure, and once they're done?



 more important than the cosmetic "noop" issue.



And we've been discussing those as well, both "high" and "low"...

I've commented in quite a few areas, like "void main", "writeln"
"str", "imaginary real", "Object.printf" and such important ones ?

This thread was just about a "new" brace style, using semicolons.

--anders
Feb 21 2005
parent "Regan Heath" <regan netwin.co.nz> writes:
On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 22:17:35 +0000 (UTC), MicroWizard  
<MicroWizard_member pathlink.com> wrote:

 Once we are so serious we have to choose the Python way :-)
 ..What code looks fine => that code works fine => any code that is
 not so precise => must be wrong => compiler error...
 (This is the opposite side and I really do not share this idea.)

 When we finish to discuss "important D things" think a little bit!

 Our common goal is to form D a language, which is easy to learn,
 easy to use, easy to read and easy to understand but powerful
 in any way we can imagine. How to do it is the question only.

 A simple and unambigous syntax is real need. It makes the compiler
 able to catch the most common mistakes...

 Strong types, few automatic type conversion and a consequent runtime  
 library
 helps the compiler to detect the real point of error...

 [...]

 Regarding the original issue: my opinion is ...

 for(...blablabla..)    is correct, the comment shows the intention
 {
 //
 }

 nop;                   is ugly and misleading, thumb down
 (perhaps nop; statement could have other important meaning)



Well... I've given up on the idea, but, I would like you to qualify why  
you think its misleading?

Regan
Feb 21 2005
prev sibling parent Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> writes:
Matthew wrote:

 I have a personal coding standard that says an empty block *must* be 
 represented with
 
     {}
 



It's easy to search for, easy to spot in code.
And explicit. I'll adopt it.
Feb 21 2005
prev sibling parent reply "Matthew" <admin stlsoft.dot.dot.dot.dot.org> writes:
They all look ok to me

"Anders F Björklund" <afb algonet.se> wrote in message 
news:cvb649$qva$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 Are any of these extra semicolons really errors ?


 void f()
 {

 };

 class C
 {

 };

 struct S
 {
   char c;
 };

 union U
 {
   char c;
 };

 void main()
 {
   if (false)
   {

   };

   foreach(char c; "")
   {

   };

   ;
   null;
 }



 They all pass the current D compiler silently...

 --anders

 PS. Not the "char c;" one, but the rest of them.
Feb 20 2005
next sibling parent zwang <nehzgnaw gmail.com> writes:
I agree.  They are harmless anyway.


Matthew wrote:

 They all look ok to me
 
 "Anders F Björklund" <afb algonet.se> wrote in message 
 news:cvb649$qva$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 

Are any of these extra semicolons really errors ?



void f()
{

};

class C
{

};

struct S
{
  char c;
};

union U
{
  char c;
};

void main()
{
  if (false)
  {

  };

  foreach(char c; "")
  {

  };

  ;
  null;
}



They all pass the current D compiler silently...

--anders

PS. Not the "char c;" one, but the rest of them.
Feb 20 2005
prev sibling parent reply =?UTF-8?B?VGhvbWFzIEvDvGhuZQ==?= writes:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Matthew wrote:

| "Anders F Björklund" <afb algonet.se> wrote in message
| news:cvb649$qva$1 digitaldaemon.com...
|
|>Are any of these extra semicolons really errors ?
|>
|>
|>>void f()
|>>{
|>>
|>>};
|>>
|>>class C
|>>{
|>>
|>>};
|>>
|>>struct S
|>>{
|>>  char c;
|>>};
|>>
|>>union U
|>>{
|>>  char c;
|>>};
|>>
|>>void main()
|>>{
|>>  if (false)
|>>  {
|>>
|>>  };
|>>
|>>  foreach(char c; "")
|>>  {
|>>
|>>  };
|>>
|>>  ;
|>>  null;
|>>}
|>
|>They all pass the current D compiler silently...
|>
|
| They all look ok to me
|


http://digitalmars.com/d/statement.html#expression
# Expressions that have no affect, like (x + x), are illegal in
# expression statements.

Thomas

PS Use GDC withe the dstar patches to catch those statements
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFCGUE23w+/yD4P9tIRAhCeAKCJ8HZigrdIh+YYRi+/PxNKpANu7QCgsnuv
h2fq0dW3rz3rBn2biapYGxU=
=tUv+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Feb 20 2005
parent =?UTF-8?B?QW5kZXJzIEYgQmrDtnJrbHVuZA==?= <afb algonet.se> writes:
Thomas Kühne wrote:


 |>Are any of these extra semicolons really errors ?
 |>




 |>>void main()
 |>>{
 |>>  null;
 |>>}
 |>
 |>They all pass the current D compiler silently...
 |
 | They all look ok to me
 
 
 http://digitalmars.com/d/statement.html#expression
 # Expressions that have no affect, like (x + x), are illegal in
 # expression statements.



OK, that would make the last meaningless "null;" (or "0;" or whatever)
illegal. It seems that GCC takes an issue with it as well, when I tried:

	"warning: statement with no effect"

The other ones seem to be OK to all (GDC, GCC, and the rest of you)
So I guess it's just another Brace Style to getting used to then...

--anders

PS. The last example was bad anyway, as it's not an "extra semicolon"
Feb 20 2005