Re: [C--] qc-- fails to compile switch statement

 > If a front-ends knows some values in this set of unused range values is
 > infeasible, then it can list only the feasible unused range values for the
 > default. This might result in more efficient translation.

If a front end knows some values are infeasible, they should be listed
on the switch statement as a whole, *not* on the default case.

 > But I believe in most cases front-ends cannot derive which values are
 > infeasible at runtime, so (*) will provide a convenience to front-end
 > writers as they only need to assert the range limits of switch statement
 > expressions.

We've added convenience features to C-- in the past, but only under
where the cost/benefit ratio overwhelmingly favorable.  That's why we
abandoned declaration before us, and that's why we believe the span
mechanism should be improved.  But the benefit of making switch
statements more convenient is not worth the cost.  The language
manual is already too large and too difficult to understand.


Norman
_______________________________________________
Cminusminus mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.eecs.harvard.edu/mailman/listinfo/cminusminus