• Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> Jul 11 2008

Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:

superdan Wrote:
 Robert Fraser Wrote:
 
 Don Wrote:
 
 superdan wrote:
 4. warning - switch statement has no default
 
 another example of a motherfuck. just require total coverage. in closed-set
cases i routinely write anyway:
 
 switch (crap) 
 {
 case a: ...; break;
 case b: ...; break;
 default: assert(crap == c): ...; break;
 }
 
 again: vast majority of code already has a default. the minority just has to
add a little code. make it an error.


 Yup. Make it an error.


 I agree with everything else, but this one I think shouldn't be an error or 
 warning (the implicit assert(0) is enough). This is because the vast 
 majority of switch statements I use (and many I see) are over enums, and 
 if every branch in the enumeration is covered, a pointless "default" will just
 complicate code.


 you are not disagreeing. switching over an enum is already closed if you 
 mention all cases. the compiler knows that. it should indeed just throw an
 error if you have an out-of-range value that you forged from an int. but 
 that's an uncommon case. don't make all pay for a rare bug.


Ah, in that case we are in agreement. But as of a few versions ago, DMD
still gives a warning even if you use all the possible values of an enum in a
switch statement.