Semicolons: mostly unnecessary?

[KennyTM~]

On Oct 22, 09 13:57, AJ wrote:
> "KennyTM~"<kennytm at gmail.com>  wrote in message
> news:hbopns$125k$1 at digitalmars.com...
>> On Oct 22, 09 12:29, AJ wrote:
>>> "Adam D. Ruppe"<destructionator at gmail.com>   wrote in message
>>> news:mailman.228.1256181155.20261.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
>>>> On Wed, Oct 21, 2009 at 09:25:34PM -0500, AJ wrote:
>>>>> That's not D source code. Why do you keep trying to use English text as
>>>>> an
>>>>> example?
>>>>
>>>> The logic behind all the arguments you make,
>>>
>>> That would be "all fine and dandy", but I'm not arguing about anything.
>>> (So
>>> you must be arguing? About what?).
>>>
>>>> except for one, should apply
>>>> equally well to English as it does to D.
>>>
>>> That's silly. There is no need to use the text of Shakespeare's tragedies
>>> to
>>> allude to source code. There is no need and it is entirely inappropriate
>>> to
>>> expand the context of the issue to other realms. The context is
>>> (currently):
>>> semicolons as statement terminators for single-statement lines.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cons:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Makes source code less comprehensible.
>>>>
>>>> Based on what? Because you say so?
>>>
>>> It's more to digest when it's not necessary. It's easier to identify
>>> something when it's in less intricate (read, plain) surroundings.
>>>
>>> <snipped inappropriate context reference>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 2. Is redundant with the newline designator.
>>>>
>>> <snipped inappropriate context reference>
>>>
>>>> is obviously false,
>>>
>>> If I put it on the list, it wasn't obvious at all, even if it is
>>> incorrect
>>> (though I think it is correct).
>>>
>>>> unless
>>>> you specifically require a line continuation character:
>>>>
>>>> a = b +
>>>> c
>>>
>>> Without semicolon requirement:
>>>
>>> a=b+ // this is an error
>>> c // this is OK
>>>
>>> With semicolon requirement:
>>>
>>> a=b+; // this is an error
>>> c; // this is OK
>>>
>>> What's the diff?
>>>
>>>> A newline and a semicolon are not redundant unless you specifically
>>>> define
>>>> a statement as being one and only one line.
>>>
>>> A semicolon is redundate with newline for single-statement lines. Oh, you
>>> say that a lot of constructs are inherently single statements but written
>>> on
>>> multiple lines? Well, that may be just the kind of examination I was
>>> looking
>>> for (ironic that _I_ had to bring it up, huh):
>>>
>>> if(true)
>>>       dothis()
>>>
>>> That situation has to be evaluated: is parsing at the construct level too
>>> much effort or is it desireable? (ParseIfStatement()). Statement-level
>>> parsing better/worse than line-level parsing?
>>>
>>>> Back to the magic of above though. What if you rewrote it:
>>>> a = b
>>>>      +c
>>>
>>> Without semicolon requirement:
>>>
>>> a=b // OK
>>>    +c // error
>>>
>>> With semicolon requirement:
>>>
>>> a=b; // OK
>>>    +c; // error
>>>
>>> What's the diff?
>>
>> a=b
>>    +c(d)  // no error
>
> Why not?

Good question. Because the compiler accepts a=b;+c(d);.

Whether c is declared as a variable or a function, it still looks
> wrong to me. A statement can't begin with a +.

OK.

struct S { int a }
int a

void main () {
   S s
   auto t = s
   .a = 1       // ambiguity: Note that .sth means global scope.
}





>
>>
>>>
>>>> 3. Is more typing.
>>>>
>>> <snipped inappropriate context reference>>
>>>
>>>>    how long does it take to type a semicolon anyway?
>>>
>>> Typing unnecessary semicolons (if they are unnecessary) is "dumb".
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>