> But one other suggestion, that of putting the declaration in the switch,
as
> in "switch(int c = foo.bar().baz().fred().wilma().barney())", suggests the
> notion that a declaration with an initializer is an expression with a
value.
> That might be worth thinking about.

Yes I like that idea...  but most of the time you wouldn't want to declare variables inside a complex expression.  I suppose their scope would usually just be the scope of the statement.

Sean

"Sean L. Palmer" <spalmer@iname.com> wrote in message news:a7vt2l$10ac$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > But one other suggestion, that of putting the declaration in the switch,
> as
> > in "switch(int c = foo.bar().baz().fred().wilma().barney())", suggests
the
> > notion that a declaration with an initializer is an expression with a
> value.
> > That might be worth thinking about.
>
> Yes I like that idea...  but most of the time you wouldn't want to declare variables inside a complex expression. I suppose their scope would usually just be the scope of the statement.

I think I'd prefer that it have the same scope as if the declaration came in the immediately preceeding statement.

{
    int a;
    // ...  b not visible here...
    a = (int b = c * 5);
    // b visible here, and extends to closing brace.
}

--
Richard Krehbiel, Arlington, VA, USA
rich@kastle.com (work) or krehbiel3@comcast.net  (personal)

"Sean L. Palmer" <spalmer@iname.com> wrote in message news:a7vsn9$1076$1@digitaldaemon.com...

> I just can't see why you can't merely do this:
>
> int myVar = foo.bar().baz().fred().wilma().barney();
> switch (myVar)

Because myVar will now be clattering the namespace, while it's
only needed _inside_ the switch (like in most cases the
loop counter is only needed inside the loop).

Of course, an additional pair of braces could be added... but it is a hack.

"Sean L. Palmer" <spalmer@iname.com> wrote in message news:a7vsn9$1076$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> The only thing this thread does for me is make me want the old Pascal
'with'
> statement.  Even that had some flaws.  I wasn't aware that D had a with statement.  I should go look that up.

I'll save you the trouble <g>. D has a with statement. To tell the truth, I'm not that sure it's a good idea, but it is there.

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:aa336i$274n$1@digitaldaemon.com...

> I'll save you the trouble <g>. D has a with statement. To tell the truth, I'm not that sure it's a good idea, but it is there.

It is a good idea. I even think it would be better if it worked with structures too, especially when filling large WinAPI structs (WNDCLASS, LOGFONT etc).

"Pavel Minayev" <evilone@omen.ru> wrote in message news:aa3lsj$2rhv$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> "Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:aa336i$274n$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > I'll save you the trouble <g>. D has a with statement. To tell the
truth,
> > I'm not that sure it's a good idea, but it is there.
> It is a good idea. I even think it would be better if it worked with structures too, especially when filling large WinAPI structs (WNDCLASS, LOGFONT etc).

That's a good idea. -Walter