Is this a bug? +goto

[Neia Neutuladh]

On Tue, 06 Nov 2018 00:33:56 +0000, MatheusBN wrote:
> Just to be clear, when you say "x exists at the label Q", you mean at
> the same scope, right?

The same or an outer scope. It's also invalid to write:

goto Y;
{
  int x;
  {
    Y:
  }
}

> That's interesting but a bit confusing isn't?
> 
> And I found a bit strange that in such code, since "x" is never used,
> why it isn't skipped.

Because simple rules are usually easier to understand and implement.

> I know it's another language but in C at least in GCC there is no error
> over such code, so that's my confusion.

Because C is a horribly unsafe language, far beyond necessary to have a 
low-level systems language.

In C++, if you skip over `int i = 10;` it's an error, but not if you skip 
over `int i;`.

Similarly, if you skip over a class variable declaration without an 
explicit initialization expression, if the class has a constructor or 
destructor, it's an error.

In D, every variable of every type is initialized unless you opt out. The 
compiler *could* let you skip over declarations that are void-initialized, 
but there isn't a huge reason to do so.