Is this a bug? +goto
MatheusBN
m at gmail.com
Tue Nov 6 00:38:01 UTC 2018
On Tuesday, 6 November 2018 at 00:13:52 UTC, Stanislav Blinov
wrote:
> But here it's fine:
>
> void main(){
> {
> goto Q;
> S x;
> } // <---
> Q:
> writeln("a");
> }
>
> because goto jumps over both initialization *and* destruction,
> i.e. neither would even be performed.
I see but at same time I found a bit confusing, because in this
case we're just adding a new scope to fix the issue, and like I
said to Jonathan, I thought that "x" wouldn't be initialized
since it is never used.
Thanks,
MatheusBN.
More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn
mailing list