digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 5669] New: Constructor calls should be valid inside final switch
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (51/51) Feb 28 2011 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5669
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5669 Summary: Constructor calls should be valid inside final switch Product: D Version: D2 Platform: Other OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P2 Component: DMD AssignedTo: nobody puremagic.com ReportedBy: clugdbug yahoo.com.au Posted on behalf of Mafi ---- http://www.digitalmars.com/pnews/read.php?server=news.digitalmars.com&group=digitalmars.D&artnum=130643 First I tried the following which dmd complains about. enum SomeEnum { A, B} class D : C { this(int); this(string); this(SomeEnum s) { final switch(s) { case SomeEnum.A: this("Hello"); break; case SomeEnum.B: this(3); break; } } } dmd says it's not valid because constructor-calls are not valid behind labels. But these labels are the cases of a final switch with no gotos in it. IMO my code is perfectly valid and dmd should see it. It shouldn't be too complicated check because final switch already enforces breaks and that all possible paths a defined. Just check if it's final switch and there are no 'goto case's in there. class D : C { this(int); this(string); this(SomeEnum s) { if(s == SomeEnum.A) { this("Hello"); } else if(s == SomeEnum.B) { this(3); } else assert(0); } } It says now that one path does not have constructor-call. This is ridiculous. I mean it's an assert(0) which is statically known to fail. It should check if all paths call constructors or _fail_ -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Feb 28 2011