So far we've got the following cases where a semicolon is required to avoid ambiguity:
- Post increment and pre-increment.
- End of a struct, union or enum declaration.
- Empty statements.
Are there any others?
One could argue that these three situations could easily be redesigned. For example, by introducting a keyword for empty statements (this would improve clarity and readability anyway) and using a different sequence for the post and pre inc/decrement operators.
>> the fact that you have to use them at all is annoying - omitting them wouldn't create
>> any ambiguities for the parser that I can think of...so why should they be required?
Not really, if you didn't have them you couldn't do any command stacking:
int i = 0; myFunc(i); i++; myFunc(i);
>> What benefit do you see arising from this? I mean, why did you make it a habit?
Nothing, it wasn't deliberate.
Thantos, Both of you'r examples INVOLVE if-else statements, in whitch cases I never use unless I need to.
Last edited by Queatrix; 02-22-2006 at 05:50 PM. Reason: Adding stuff!
You should read the replies, as someone suggested they could be eliminated with rules requiring an operator between data otherwise it's a new statement.Originally Posted by Cool-August
which was then replied with the exception of unary operators such as increment (++) and decrement (--)Code:a + b * c d = e ^ No operator this starts a new statement
Sent from my iPad®
Hmmm, did anyone think about the fact that it would KILL READABILITY.
I like simicolons, they let me know when someone is ending a statement and
to me, they are a blessing when I code. What good would it do if you're writing code
and you have to go back up five lines and you have no idea what you were doing?
Also, a lot of people, I'm sure, like simicolons, and in addition everyone would
have to learn how to code WITHOUT them.
You're missing the point.
This code isn't ambiguous. But as we have seen, there are some potential ambiguities involving the ++ operator.Code:int i = 0 myFunc(i) i++ myFunc(i)
EDIT: Missed Maelstrom's reply.
Last edited by Sang-drax : Tomorrow at 02:21 AM. Reason: Time travelling
Not after do-while loops you can't.I realized that you can place a semi-colen after brackets.
Code:do { }; while(1);
dwk
Seek and ye shall find. quaere et invenies.
"Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it." -- Alan Perlis
"Testing can only prove the presence of bugs, not their absence." -- Edsger Dijkstra
"The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing." -- John Powell
Other boards: DaniWeb, TPS
Unofficial Wiki FAQ: cpwiki.sf.net
My website: http://dwks.theprogrammingsite.com/
Projects: codeform, xuni, atlantis, nort, etc.
