• Robert (3/3) Dec 08 2003 I suggest that unused labels should cause an error.
• Walter (8/10) Dec 08 2003 I understand what you're saying. The problem with it, though, is that th...
• Matthew Wilson (6/14) Dec 08 2003 Absolutely not. Your ability to flabbergast me on this issue has just
• Walter (12/28) Dec 09 2003 the
• Robert (7/38) Dec 09 2003 Hmm. Though I think goto isn't a good example,
• Richard Krehbiel (6/17) Dec 09 2003 I have myself coded the infamous "defualt:" goto-label, only to have my
• J C Calvarese (7/32) Dec 09 2003 For me, using an editor that does syntax highlighting can help avoid
• Juan C. (18/28) Dec 09 2003 Another solution to a mispelled default looking like a label is my idea ...

Robert <Robert_member pathlink.com> writes:

I suggest that unused labels should cause an error.
This prevents bugs due to typos of `default' label.

Robert (Japanese)

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"Robert" <Robert_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:br1r2o$19i0$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I suggest that unused labels should cause an error.
 This prevents bugs due to typos of `default' label.

I understand what you're saying. The problem with it, though, is that the
label may be a target of a goto from inside a version statement elsewhere in
the function. Wrapping the label in another version winds up looking kinda
ugly.

The default typo bug is alleviated somewhat by the language inserting a
default:assert(0); if no other default is supplied.

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:

 I suggest that unused labels should cause an error.
 This prevents bugs due to typos of `default' label.

 I understand what you're saying. The problem with it, though, is that the
 label may be a target of a goto from inside a version statement elsewhere

in
 the function. Wrapping the label in another version winds up looking kinda
 ugly.

 The default typo bug is alleviated somewhat by the language inserting a
 default:assert(0); if no other default is supplied.

Absolutely not. Your ability to flabbergast me on this issue has just
expanded its borders. If the typo issue isn't compelling evidence in favour
of a mandatory default, I can't conceive of what will be.



:(

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message
news:br3klk$uuk$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I suggest that unused labels should cause an error.
 This prevents bugs due to typos of `default' label.

 I understand what you're saying. The problem with it, though, is that


the
 label may be a target of a goto from inside a version statement


elsewhere
 in
 the function. Wrapping the label in another version winds up looking


kinda
 ugly.

 The default typo bug is alleviated somewhat by the language inserting a
 default:assert(0); if no other default is supplied.

 Absolutely not. Your ability to flabbergast me on this issue has just
 expanded its borders. If the typo issue isn't compelling evidence in

favour
 of a mandatory default, I can't conceive of what will be.



 :(



I didn't try the compilers) are unreferenced labels an error. I'm not

doesn't seem to be any consistent view in the C-like-language programming
community how switch and labels ought to work.

Robert <Robert_member pathlink.com> writes:

Hmm.  Though I think goto isn't a good example,
the problem may occur when labeled break is used.
I back it down.  ...since I've never done the typo, ...no,
I think now that this problem should be solved by other way
(e.g. improving switch statement syntax itself.)


In article <br417o$1iea$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
"Matthew Wilson" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message
news:br3klk$uuk$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I suggest that unused labels should cause an error.
 This prevents bugs due to typos of `default' label.

 I understand what you're saying. The problem with it, though, is that


the
 label may be a target of a goto from inside a version statement


elsewhere
 in
 the function. Wrapping the label in another version winds up looking


kinda
 ugly.

 The default typo bug is alleviated somewhat by the language inserting a
 default:assert(0); if no other default is supplied.

 Absolutely not. Your ability to flabbergast me on this issue has just
 expanded its borders. If the typo issue isn't compelling evidence in

favour
 of a mandatory default, I can't conceive of what will be.



 :(



I didn't try the compilers) are unreferenced labels an error. I'm not

doesn't seem to be any consistent view in the C-like-language programming
community how switch and labels ought to work.

Robert (Japanese)

Richard Krehbiel <rich kastle.com> writes:

Walter wrote:
 "Robert" <Robert_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
 news:br1r2o$19i0$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 
I suggest that unused labels should cause an error.
This prevents bugs due to typos of `default' label.

 
 
 I understand what you're saying. The problem with it, though, is that the
 label may be a target of a goto from inside a version statement elsewhere in
 the function. Wrapping the label in another version winds up looking kinda
 ugly.

I have myself coded the infamous "defualt:" goto-label, only to have my 
default case ignored.  Then, I spent a day looking at the code and not 
seeing the misspelling.

My own thought was to spell it "case default:" rather than just 
"default:" to make the difference more obvious.

J C Calvarese <jcc7 cox.net> writes:

Richard Krehbiel wrote:

 Walter wrote:
 
 "Robert" <Robert_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
 news:br1r2o$19i0$1 digitaldaemon.com...

 I suggest that unused labels should cause an error.
 This prevents bugs due to typos of `default' label.



 I understand what you're saying. The problem with it, though, is that the
 label may be a target of a goto from inside a version statement 
 elsewhere in
 the function. Wrapping the label in another version winds up looking 
 kinda
 ugly.

 
 
 I have myself coded the infamous "defualt:" goto-label, only to have my 
 default case ignored.  Then, I spent a day looking at the code and not 
 seeing the misspelling.

For me, using an editor that does syntax highlighting can help avoid 
this kind of error.

YMMV.

(Of course, if I haven't made any stupid programming mistakes recently, 
it's because I haven't worked on any programs recently.)


Justin

 
 My own thought was to spell it "case default:" rather than just 
 "default:" to make the difference more obvious.
 

Juan C. <Juan_member pathlink.com> writes:

Another solution to a mispelled default looking like a label is my idea for a
new switch statement (as mentioned before) wherein the braces of a case are
required...

switch expr
{
case x
{
}

// no code allowed here

default
{
}
}

not only does this form of switch/case _not_ have a colon (and therefore not
look like a label), but no code (and therefore no labels) are allowed within the
switch but outside a case.

And of course I don't want fall-through, but that's another matter.  :)

In article <br3gdl$pan$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Walter says...
"Robert" <Robert_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:br1r2o$19i0$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 I suggest that unused labels should cause an error.
 This prevents bugs due to typos of `default' label.

I understand what you're saying. The problem with it, though, is that the
label may be a target of a goto from inside a version statement elsewhere in
the function. Wrapping the label in another version winds up looking kinda
ugly.

The default typo bug is alleviated somewhat by the language inserting a
default:assert(0); if no other default is supplied.