digitalmars.D.learn - Should the 2.054 feature about warning on implicit fallthrough include

simendsjo (15/15) Sep 14 2011 Not sure if this is a bug or as intended.

bearophile (20/21) Sep 14 2011 The semantics of switch is a mess (example: see http://d.puremagic.com/i...

Timon Gehr (14/35) Sep 14 2011 I think it is a bit mean to say the whole semantics is a mess, because

bearophile (14/19) Sep 14 2011 The original C design is a mess with several traps, and successive thing...

Dmitry Olshansky (6/25) Sep 14 2011 It depends on what you need it to do.
Timon Gehr (14/31) Sep 14 2011 That's subjective of course. It does not strike me as particularly ugly....

bearophile (22/25) Sep 14 2011 At the moment I suggest nothing, because the situation is set.

Timon Gehr (30/55) Sep 14 2011 import std.stdio;
travert phare.normalesup.org (Christophe) (7/26) Sep 15 2011 If there is a goto aLabel somewhere, the program could go to line 9.

Dmitry Olshansky (7/22) Sep 14 2011 Label doesn't affect switch statement in any way, e.g. it's not part of
Timon Gehr (4/19) Sep 14 2011 This is as intended. Labels and case/default statements are not the same...

simendsjo <simendsjo gmail.com> writes:

Not sure if this is a bug or as intended.

import std.stdio;
void main() {
     int i = 1;
     switch(i) {
         case 0:
             writeln("case 0");
             goto default; // needed here
         default:
             writeln("default");
             // But always falls through here
         aLabel:
             writeln("a label");
     }
}

Sep 14 2011

bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

simendsjo Wrote:

 Not sure if this is a bug or as intended.

The semantics of switch is a mess (example: see
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3820 ).
Mixing labels and switch cases seems a good way to create a bigger mess.

If I invert some things in your code I get an error...

import std.stdio;
void main() {
     int i = 1;
     switch(i) {
         case 0:
             writeln("case 0");
             goto default; // needed here
         aLabel:
             writeln("a label");
         default:
             writeln("default");
             // But always falls through here
     }
}

Bye,
bearophile

Sep 14 2011

Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:

On 09/14/2011 09:11 PM, bearophile wrote:
 simendsjo Wrote:

 Not sure if this is a bug or as intended.

 The semantics of switch is a mess (example: see
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3820 ).
 Mixing labels and switch cases seems a good way to create a bigger mess.

I think it is a bit mean to say the whole semantics is a mess, because 
there is an accepts-invalid bug. ;) What is really nice about D's case 
labels, is that they introduce a new scope. (as opposed to C) Unless 
they are mixed in: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=6590 .

switch statements and gotos provide nice means of writing highly 
efficient code that still looks somewhat structured. I don't agree that 
using labels inside a switch creates a mess.

 If I invert some things in your code I get an error...

 import std.stdio;
 void main() {
       int i = 1;
       switch(i) {
           case 0:
               writeln("case 0");
               goto default; // needed here
           aLabel:
               writeln("a label");
           default:
               writeln("default");
               // But always falls through here
       }
 }

 Bye,
 bearophile

Well, yes, but that is as expected. Would you expect a fall through 
error on this code?

writeln(1);
label:
writeln(2);


labeled statements and case/default statements are not the same thing.

Sep 14 2011

bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

Timon Gehr:

 I think it is a bit mean to say the whole semantics is a mess,

The original C design is a mess with several traps, and successive things added
in D to the switch have increased the mess, they were designed from very narrow
points of view, with a lack of global vision:

1) The case x: .. case y: syntax is ugly, and it doesn't respect the semantics
of the .. in D that means a range open on the right.

2) The introduction of final switches is badly designed and not complete, so
the safety of the situation is not improved:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5713

3) The recent improvements (that are patches on the stupid semantics of the C
switch) are buggy and need a patch:
https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/370

Switch is too much limited, ignoring other needs:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=596

I'll never agree that the C switch is well (or even "well enough") designed.
Even a simple language as Pascal gets the case-of statement better than C.


 switch statements and gotos provide nice means of writing highly 
 efficient code that still looks somewhat structured.

I'd like computed gotos in D. I have discussed with Walter often about this,
but he doesn't listen much on this.


 Well, yes, but that is as expected. Would you expect a fall through 
 error on this code?

Have you run that code?

Bye,
bearophile

Sep 14 2011

Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com> writes:

On 15.09.2011 0:51, bearophile wrote:
 Timon Gehr:

 I think it is a bit mean to say the whole semantics is a mess,

 The original C design is a mess with several traps, and successive things
added in D to the switch have increased the mess, they were designed from very
narrow points of view, with a lack of global vision:

 1) The case x: .. case y: syntax is ugly, and it doesn't respect the semantics
of the .. in D that means a range open on the right.

 2) The introduction of final switches is badly designed and not complete, so
the safety of the situation is not improved:
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5713

 3) The recent improvements (that are patches on the stupid semantics of the C
switch) are buggy and need a patch:
 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/370

 Switch is too much limited, ignoring other needs:
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=596

 I'll never agree that the C switch is well (or even "well enough") designed.
Even a simple language as Pascal gets the case-of statement better than C.

It depends on what you need it to do.
If all you need is jump table then C switch is your best friend.

 switch statements and gotos provide nice means of writing highly
 efficient code that still looks somewhat structured.

 I'd like computed gotos in D. I have discussed with Walter often about this,
but he doesn't listen much on this.

+1.

 Well, yes, but that is as expected. Would you expect a fall through
 error on this code?

 Have you run that code?

 Bye,
 bearophile


-- 
Dmitry Olshansky

Sep 14 2011

Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:

On 09/14/2011 10:51 PM, bearophile wrote:
 Timon Gehr:

 I think it is a bit mean to say the whole semantics is a mess,

 The original C design is a mess with several traps, and successive things
added in D to the switch have increased the mess, they were designed from very
narrow points of view, with a lack of global vision:

 1) The case x: .. case y: syntax is ugly, and it doesn't respect the semantics
of the .. in D that means a range open on the right.

That's subjective of course. It does not strike me as particularly ugly. 
(if you'd rather see case x .. y+1:, I think that is exceptionally 
ugly). The fact that the last case is included is a move to make it more 
useful. What would you suggest?


 2) The introduction of final switches is badly designed and not complete, so
the safety of the situation is not improved:
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5713

Yah, that is quite messy, but I think that can be fixed.

 3) The recent improvements (that are patches on the stupid semantics of the C
switch) are buggy and need a patch:
 https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dmd/pull/370

QOI issue, not a fundamental design flaw. I am sure the patch will be 
applied.

 Switch is too much limited, ignoring other needs:
 http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=596

I agree that it would be nice for switch to work on other types.

The other needs are better addressed by the introduction of a match 
expression.

 I'll never agree that the C switch is well (or even "well enough") designed.
Even a simple language as Pascal gets the case-of statement better than C.

'C switch' means 'jump table'. It does do that perfectly. ;)

 switch statements and gotos provide nice means of writing highly
 efficient code that still looks somewhat structured.

 I'd like computed gotos in D. I have discussed with Walter often about this,
but he doesn't listen much on this.

+1.

 Well, yes, but that is as expected. Would you expect a fall through
 error on this code?

 Have you run that code?

What is your point?

Sep 14 2011

bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

Timon Gehr:

 What would you suggest?

At the moment I suggest nothing, because the situation is set.

Case syntax was discussed a lot, by me too. I suggested to differentiate the
syntax, not using ".." because in D they denote an interval open on the right.


 'C switch' means 'jump table'. It does do that perfectly. ;)

C language is full of badly designed parts :-)


 What is your point?

Well, I don't understand the error it gives :-) Are you able to explain it to
me?


import std.stdio;
void main() {
     int i = 1;
     switch(i) {
         case 0:
             writeln("case 0");
             goto default; // needed here
         aLabel:
             writeln("a label");
         default:
             writeln("default");
             // But always falls through here
     }
}

test.d(10): Error: switch case fallthrough - use 'goto default;' if intended

Bye,
bearophile

Sep 14 2011

Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:

On 09/15/2011 12:43 AM, bearophile wrote:
 Timon Gehr:

 What would you suggest?

 At the moment I suggest nothing, because the situation is set.

 Case syntax was discussed a lot, by me too. I suggested to differentiate the
syntax, not using ".." because in D they denote an interval open on the right.


 'C switch' means 'jump table'. It does do that perfectly. ;)

 C language is full of badly designed parts :-)


 What is your point?

 Well, I don't understand the error it gives :-) Are you able to explain it to
me?


 import std.stdio;
 void main() {
       int i = 1;
       switch(i) {
           case 0:
               writeln("case 0");
               goto default; // needed here
           aLabel:
               writeln("a label");
           default:
               writeln("default");
               // But always falls through here
       }
 }

 test.d(10): Error: switch case fallthrough - use 'goto default;' if intended

 Bye,
 bearophile


import std.stdio;
void main() {
      int i = 1;
      switch(i) {
          case 0:
              writeln("case 0");
              // goto default; // NOT needed here (for it to compile)
          aLabel:
              writeln("a label");
              goto default; // explicit fall through
          default:
              writeln("default");
              // But always falls through here
      }
}

And that is exactly the same as this:


import std.stdio;
void main() {
      int i = 1;
      switch(i) {
          case 0:
              writeln("case 0");
              writeln("a label");
              goto default; // comment this out to get your error back.
          default:
              writeln("default");
      }
}


It is a simple case of switch case fallthrough.

Sep 14 2011

travert phare.normalesup.org (Christophe) writes:

bearophile , dans le message (digitalmars.D.learn:29532), a �crit�:
 Well, I don't understand the error it gives :-) Are you able to explain it to
me?
 
 
 import std.stdio;
 void main() {
      int i = 1;
      switch(i) {
          case 0:
              writeln("case 0");
              goto default; // needed here
          aLabel:
              writeln("a label");
          default:
              writeln("default");
              // But always falls through here
      }
 }
 
 test.d(10): Error: switch case fallthrough - use 'goto default;' if intended

If there is a goto aLabel somewhere, the program could go to line 9. 
Then it should fall to the default statement, but the compiler asks for 
an explicit fallthrough, since default is not a simple label, but 
something like a case statement.

-- 
Christophe

Sep 15 2011

Dmitry Olshansky <dmitry.olsh gmail.com> writes:

On 14.09.2011 22:52, simendsjo wrote:
 Not sure if this is a bug or as intended.

 import std.stdio;
 void main() {
 int i = 1;
 switch(i) {
 case 0:
 writeln("case 0");
 goto default; // needed here
 default:
 writeln("default");
 // But always falls through here
 aLabel:
 writeln("a label");
 }
 }

Label doesn't affect switch statement in any way, e.g. it's not part of 
case x: synatx, and as such is "fallthrough" like in normal code.
So this part works as intended, though I agree with bearophile there are 
some messy things w.r.t. switch.

-- 
Dmitry Olshansky

Sep 14 2011

Timon Gehr <timon.gehr gmx.ch> writes:

On 09/14/2011 08:52 PM, simendsjo wrote:
 Not sure if this is a bug or as intended.

 import std.stdio;
 void main() {
 int i = 1;
 switch(i) {
 case 0:
 writeln("case 0");
 goto default; // needed here
 default:
 writeln("default");
 // But always falls through here
 aLabel:
 writeln("a label");
 }
 }

This is as intended. Labels and case/default statements are not the same 
thing. As an example, case/default statements introduce a new scope, 
while labels do not.

Sep 14 2011

D Programming

C/C++ Programming

Other

digitalmars.D.learn - Should the 2.054 feature about warning on implicit fallthrough include