digitalmars.D.bugs - [Issue 7133] New: [tdpl] There should be no empty statement
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (21/21) Dec 18 2011 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7133
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (15/15) Dec 18 2011 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7133
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (7/7) Dec 18 2011 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7133
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (6/6) Dec 18 2011 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7133
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (7/7) Dec 18 2011 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7133
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (15/17) Dec 19 2011 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7133
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (12/14) Dec 19 2011 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7133
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (13/19) Dec 19 2011 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7133
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (13/17) Dec 19 2011 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7133
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (23/26) Dec 24 2011 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7133
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (12/14) Dec 25 2011 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7133
- d-bugmail puremagic.com (14/14) Dec 29 2011 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7133
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7133
Summary: [tdpl] There should be no empty statement
Product: D
Version: D2
Platform: Other
OS/Version: Mac OS X
Status: NEW
Severity: normal
Priority: P2
Component: DMD
AssignedTo: nobody puremagic.com
ReportedBy: andrei metalanguage.com
18:17:17 PST ---
The statement ";" should not exist. It is never needed, never useful, and in
most cases the compiler requires it to be replaced with '{}'.
Walter and I agreed on all of the above so ";" is not present in TDPL. It
should be slowly deprecated and ultimately removed from D. It is just junk in
the trunk.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 18 2011
d-bugmail puremagic.com
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7133
Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisProg gmx.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jmdavisProg gmx.com
PST ---
The one case that I'm aware of where some have argued for its value is labels.
e.g.
LABEL:;
Since labels require a statement, ; makes it so that you can you can use a
label without really having a statement. I'm not sure that that merits keeping
it however, since in every other use case that I can think of, it has no value.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 18 2011
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7133
PST ---
I didn't think that that worked, since {} isn't a statement (at least, as far
as I know, it isn't), but if it works, it's certainly better.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 18 2011
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7133
20:06:48 PST ---
{} is the empty statement in D.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 18 2011
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7133
PST ---
Is that different from C++? I thought that {} was just an empty scope without
any statements in it at all in both C/C++ and D.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 18 2011
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7133
Stewart Gordon <smjg iname.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |smjg iname.com
Platform|Other |All
OS/Version|Mac OS X |All
Severity|normal |enhancement
Is that different from C++? I thought that {} was just an empty scope without
any statements in it at all in both C/C++ and D.
It is, but in 100% of cases the compiler can optimise away that empty scope and
so it's equivalent to an empty statement.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 19 2011
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7133
jakobovrum gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |jakobovrum gmail.com
I didn't think that that worked, since {} isn't a statement (at least, as far
as I know, it isn't), but if it works, it's certainly better.
It is indeed a statement, it's called a block statement, also in D:
http://dlang.org/statement.html#BlockStatement
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 19 2011
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7133
timon.gehr gmx.ch changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |timon.gehr gmx.ch
The statement ";" should not exist. It is never needed, never useful, and in
most cases the compiler requires it to be replaced with '{}'.
Walter and I agreed on all of the above so ";" is not present in TDPL. It
should be slowly deprecated and ultimately removed from D. It is just junk in
the trunk.
I think it is useful. This looks odd:
int i = 2;
for({} i<2; i++){}
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 19 2011
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7133
I think it is useful. This looks odd:
int i = 2;
for({} i<2; i++){}
The ; you're replacing there isn't a statement - it's something explicitly
allowed by the ForStatement syntax.
ForStatement:
for (Initialize Testopt ; Incrementopt) ScopeStatement
Initialize:
;
NoScopeNonEmptyStatement
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 19 2011
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7133
Don <clugdbug yahoo.com.au> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |clugdbug yahoo.com.au
LABEL: {}
is as good and marginally nicer.
Bear in mind that it only ever happens at the end of a block, so the next
character is always a }.
The existing label syntax needs to be retained for asm statements, though,
since they don't have {}.
asm {
jmp done;
done:
;
}
which is already ugly, and will look really silly when nude ; statements are
gone. I wish we could get rid of that silly semicolon.
In fact the oddity is that labels are considered to be statements, yet they
don't end with a semicolon.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 24 2011
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7133 ---In fact the oddity is that labels are considered to be statements, yet they don't end with a semicolon.Block, if, while, do, for, foreach, switch, with, etc. Most types of statements don't end with a semicolon. Remember that the label statement is: Identifier : NoScopeStatement The following statement is a sub-statement of the label statement. It's not any more inconsistent than other statements with sub-statements. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 25 2011
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7133
Walter Bright <bugzilla digitalmars.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC| |bugzilla digitalmars.com
Resolution| |FIXED
02:23:17 PST ---
I've added a warning for empty statements, but left the ; after the label as
allowed.
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/commit/39d850a65ea5766a7cbd7bbe2fc8ed8e784fcdee
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
Dec 29 2011