• Marcio Faustino (17/17) Jan 26 2006 Hi all,
• Don Clugston (7/32) Jan 26 2006 Confirmed. Definitely a bug. Actually this should be an error, not a
• Derek Parnell (7/24) Jan 29 2006 I believe this is a mistake in the documentation. A block begins a new
• Bruno Medeiros (12/37) Jan 31 2006 Recall this:

Marcio Faustino <Marcio_member pathlink.com> writes:

Hi all,

I have this simple program:

int main()
{
int x;

{
int x;      // illegal, x is multiply defined in function scope
}

return 0;
}

And according to the lexical for statements
(http://www.digitalmars.com/d/statement.html) it should be illegal to re-define
x. But, the DMD D Compiler (using version 0.144) doesn't warn anything about it.
I'm compiling the program as: dmd main.d -w

Any suggestions?

Thanks,

Marcio Faustino

Don Clugston <dac nospam.com.au> writes:

Marcio Faustino wrote:
 Hi all,
 
 I have this simple program:
 
 int main()
 {
 int x;
 
 {
 int x;      // illegal, x is multiply defined in function scope
 }
 
 return 0;
 }
 
 And according to the lexical for statements
 (http://www.digitalmars.com/d/statement.html) it should be illegal to re-define
 x. But, the DMD D Compiler (using version 0.144) doesn't warn anything about
it.
 I'm compiling the program as: dmd main.d -w
 
 Any suggestions?
 
 Thanks,
 
 Marcio Faustino

Confirmed. Definitely a bug. Actually this should be an error, not a 
warning.
Looking at http://www.digitalmars.com/d/statement.html,
the examples func2() and func3() compile without any complaint.
This is probably a regression, I'm sure it used to work.
Report it in digitalmars.d.bugs.

"Derek Parnell" <derek psych.ward> writes:

On Thu, 26 Jan 2006 20:51:15 +1100, Marcio Faustino  
<Marcio_member pathlink.com> wrote:

 Hi all,

 I have this simple program:

 int main()
 {
 int x;

 {
 int x;      // illegal, x is multiply defined in function scope
 }

 return 0;
 }

 And according to the lexical for statements
 (http://www.digitalmars.com/d/statement.html) it should be illegal to  
 re-define
 x. But, the DMD D Compiler (using version 0.144) doesn't warn anything  
 about it.
 I'm compiling the program as: dmd main.d -w

 Any suggestions?

I believe this is a mistake in the documentation. A block begins a new  
scope.

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia

Bruno Medeiros <daiphoenixNO SPAMlycos.com> writes:

Marcio Faustino wrote:
 Hi all,
 
 I have this simple program:
 
 int main()
 {
 int x;
 
 {
 int x;      // illegal, x is multiply defined in function scope
 }
 
 return 0;
 }
 
 And according to the lexical for statements
 (http://www.digitalmars.com/d/statement.html) it should be illegal to re-define
 x. But, the DMD D Compiler (using version 0.144) doesn't warn anything about
it.
 I'm compiling the program as: dmd main.d -w
 
 Any suggestions?
 
 Thanks,
 
 Marcio Faustino

Recall this:

"Entity name shadowing: valid or not ?"
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.learn/1979

Last word I got from Walter ( 
http://www.digitalmars.com/drn-bin/wwwnews?digitalmars.D.announce/1872 ) 
he himself wasn't sure about those. I think the func2 case should be 
allowed (that is, name shadowing with a new scope).

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - CS/E student
"Certain aspects of D are a pathway to many abilities some consider to 
be... unnatural."