• stonecobra (14/14) Jul 30 2004 Given the code:
• Sean Kelly (8/27) Jul 30 2004 Jill brought this up a week or so ago. Currently, every function is
• Matthew (3/29) Jul 31 2004 Stubs that should never be called indicate a design flaw, or at best a d...

stonecobra <scott stonecobra.com> writes:

Given the code:

class ThrowIt {
   public bool toss(Object o) {
     throw new Exception("msg");
   }
}

DMD gives:

C:\usr\local\src\d>dmd throw.d
throw.d(2): function toss function expected to return a value of type bit

Adding a:

return false;

after the throw solves the problem.  Shouldn't the throw be considered a 
return?

Scott Sanders

Sean Kelly <sean f4.ca> writes:

stonecobra wrote:
 Given the code:
 
 class ThrowIt {
   public bool toss(Object o) {
     throw new Exception("msg");
   }
 }
 
 DMD gives:
 
 C:\usr\local\src\d>dmd throw.d
 throw.d(2): function toss function expected to return a value of type bit
 
 Adding a:
 
 return false;
 
 after the throw solves the problem.  Shouldn't the throw be considered a 
 return?

Jill brought this up a week or so ago.  Currently, every function is 
required to have one return statement somewhere, though there was some 
consideration given to dropping the restriction.  I personally like the 
idea that every function is required to have at least one valid 
execution path, though this ignores the possibility of stubs that should 
never be called, etc.


Sean

"Matthew" <admin.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:

"Sean Kelly" <sean f4.ca> wrote in message
news:ceerr8$d0t$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 stonecobra wrote:
 Given the code:

 class ThrowIt {
   public bool toss(Object o) {
     throw new Exception("msg");
   }
 }

 DMD gives:

 C:\usr\local\src\d>dmd throw.d
 throw.d(2): function toss function expected to return a value of type bit

 Adding a:

 return false;

 after the throw solves the problem.  Shouldn't the throw be considered a
 return?

 Jill brought this up a week or so ago.  Currently, every function is
 required to have one return statement somewhere, though there was some
 consideration given to dropping the restriction.  I personally like the
 idea that every function is required to have at least one valid
 execution path, though this ignores the possibility of stubs that should
 never be called, etc.

Stubs that should never be called indicate a design flaw, or at best a design
compromise. As such, I think it's quite
appropriate to require the return type if only to draw attention to this fact.