DMD 1.039 and 2.023 releases

[Denis Koroskin]

On Thu, 08 Jan 2009 06:25:11 +0300, Brad Roberts <braddr at puremagic.com> wrote:

> Jason House wrote:
>> Walter Bright Wrote:
>>
>>> redsea wrote:
>>>> I'm happy to see Bugzilla 2518(scope(success) not execuate and RAII
>>>> variable destructor is not called) has been fixed, Great !
>>>>
>>>> I have some questions when I check dstress suite and Bugzilla.
>>>>
>>>> In Bugzilla 99,  according to test case:
>>>>
>>>> int main(){ int i;  label: { scope(exit) i++; i=3; }
>>>>
>>>> if(i != 4){ assert(0); }
>>>>
>>>> return 0; }
>>>>
>>>> You said:
>>>>
>>>> The test case behaves as expected, because labels do not introduce a
>>>> new scope when followed by { }.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then I check the online manual, and found:
>>>>
>>>> labels, scope(), pragma, condition compile(version/debug/static if)
>>>> would be followed by NonScopeStatement.
>>>>
>>>> It is easy to understand scope/condition compile followed by a
>>>> NonScopeStatement, but what is the meaning of  "Labeled Statements"
>>>> + NonScopeStatement ?
>>> A NonScopeStatement is a statement that, even if it has { }, does not
>>> introduce a new scope.
>>
>> I don't think this answers their question. What curly braces mean
>> after a label is clearly a design decision that you made when writing
>> D. It seems that the choice is the opposite of what people expect.
>> Can you explain why it should be NonScope?
>
> Restating in the form of a question... When would you _ever_ want {...}
> to not form a scope?
>
> Later,
> Brad

The only possible example I can think of is a case inside switch:

switch (i)
{
    case 42:
    {

    }
}