Errors in TDPL

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 06/23/2010 05:44 PM, Alix Pexton wrote:
> On 23/06/2010 16:24, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 06/23/2010 02:11 AM, Rick Trelles wrote:
>>> Saving a keystroke, if it is in sound and clear way, is a plus.
>>> At least the option to save the keystroke should be maintained.
>>>
>>> I don't see now any advantages in using a pair of braces over a single
>>> semicolon for a null statement, but why not keep it both ways?
>>
>> We've all seen that requiring "{}" after the likes of if, while etc. are
>> very beneficial for readability. Then why not generalize that? As far as
>> I can tell the only vestigial use of the lone ";" is with labels that
>> don't precede any instruction (a very rare case). At this point, ";"
>> needs more justification to stay than to go.
>>
>>> I never liked the semicolon after while() but surely it wouldn't hurt to
>>> interpret it as a null statement for those who are used to it.
>>>
>>> By the way, I always glue the closing bracket to while
>>>
>>> do{
>>>
>>> . . .
>>>
>>> }while( . . . ) // plus ";" if coding in C
>>>
>>>
>>> Rick Trelles
>>
>> That's great, except for those who enjoy "brace on its own line"
>> formatting style. For those, the "}while" would look jarring.
>>
>> Andrei
>
>
> I find that the "}while(..." style is the best way to highlight that you
> are looking a a do...while and not a regular while loop, that it is
> jarring is exactly the point ^^
>
> Making the the semicolon on the end a requirement helps if you are
> familiar with D and know it is not allowed on a regular while, but the
> less enlightened might see a classic bug pattern where there isn't one
> and try to "maintain" it away ><
>
> In some ways I think it was a mistake in to reuse while in the first
> place, but that was a decision that was made a loong time before D...
>
> A...

Walter agreed to fix do-while to require a semicolon.

Andrei