Switch case falltrhough, regression or intended behavior ?

[Stewart Gordon]

On 25/02/2013 02:01, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
<snip>
>> There's a more important way in which it isn't quite "treat warnings as
>> errors": if you use an IsExpression to test the validity of a snippet of
>> code, a pass with warnings must still be a pass.  Otherwise, you'll get
>> code that compiles with or without -w, but behaves differently in each
>> case.  There have been bugs in DMD in this respect - I'm not sure if there
>> still are.
>
> That behavior is on purpose. It really is meant that the warnings be treated
> exactly as errors. I pointed out this particular issue to Walter in the past
> (within the past month even IIRC), and he agreed that it wasn't good, but it
> was clear from what he said that it was the intended behavior and not a bug.

So according to what you're saying, it's deliberate that -w doesn't 
compile D, but rather a vendor-specific language that is confusingly 
similar to D and admits some code that is legal in D with different 
behaviour.

Please supply a link to Walter's statement.

> The problem is really that -w exists at all.

Together with the omission of a switch that simply causes warnings to be 
emitted and then returns an error status if any were.

Stewart.