On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 03:29:56PM -0700, Timothee Cour wrote: [...]
> Related question:
> 
> Why isn't the following allowed:
> ----
> void fun(){
> // code without version=A
>   version=A;
> // code with version=A
>   vesion(none):
> //code versioned out
> }
> ----
> I understand the grammar doesn't allow it, but what's the rationale, and can it be fixed?

Not exactly sure what you're trying to achieve, but isn't this what you want:

	void fun() {
		version(A) {
			...
		} else {
			..
		}
	}

?

Or are you trying to change version=A inside the function?


T

-- 
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next. -- (Stolen from the net)

H. S. Teoh:

Most of your answer posts break threads. I suggest you to try to find ways to avoid that.

Bye,
bearophile

On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 4:24 PM, bearophile <bearophileHUGS@lycos.com>wrote:

> H. S. Teoh:
>
> Most of your answer posts break threads. I suggest you to try to find ways to avoid that.
>

This issue keeps reappearing and people keep complaining; it's not his fault, the problem is with the forum.dlang.org and that should be fixed instead.

On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 3:36 PM, H. S. Teoh <hsteoh@quickfur.ath.cx> wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 17, 2013 at 03:29:56PM -0700, Timothee Cour wrote: [...]
> > Related question:
> >
> > Why isn't the following allowed:
> > ----
> > void fun(){
> > // code without version=A
> >   version=A;
> > // code with version=A
> >   vesion(none):
> > //code versioned out
> > }
> > ----
> > I understand the grammar doesn't allow it, but what's the rationale, and can it be fixed?
>
> Not exactly sure what you're trying to achieve, but isn't this what you want:
>
>         void fun() {
>                 version(A) {
>                         ...
>                 } else {
>                         ..
>                 }
>         }
>
> ?
>
> Or are you trying to change version=A inside the function?
>

The latter:  having 'version=A '  inside the function.
Currently we can only set version=A at module scope, not function scope. I
don't understand the rationale for this limitation.
Likewise with 'version(A):' which is allowed at module scope but not
function scope, ; this would be  especially useful with 'version(none):'.


>
> T
>
> --
> "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next. -- (Stolen from the net)
>

On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 01:24:12AM +0200, bearophile wrote:
> H. S. Teoh:
> 
> Most of your answer posts break threads. I suggest you to try to find ways to avoid that.
[...]

Unfortunately, it's not within my control. It's the mailing list to NNTP gateway that has a bug where message IDs are sometimes rewritten when they're not supposed to be. I suggest you should pester the listmaster instead, that way, we'll get a solution that works for everybody, not just for me. :)


T

-- 
What do you mean the Internet isn't filled with subliminal messages? What about all those buttons marked "submit"??

H. S. Teoh:

> Unfortunately, it's not within my control. It's the mailing list to NNTP
> gateway that has a bug where message IDs are sometimes rewritten when
> they're not supposed to be. I suggest you should pester the listmaster
> instead, that way, we'll get a solution that works for everybody, not
> just for me. :)

I see, OK, and sorry.

Bye,
bearophile

On 8/17/13 5:20 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 01:24:12AM +0200, bearophile wrote:
>> H. S. Teoh:
>>
>> Most of your answer posts break threads. I suggest you to try to
>> find ways to avoid that.
> [...]
>
> Unfortunately, it's not within my control. It's the mailing list to NNTP
> gateway that has a bug where message IDs are sometimes rewritten when
> they're not supposed to be. I suggest you should pester the listmaster
> instead, that way, we'll get a solution that works for everybody, not
> just for me. :)
>
>
> T
>

Don't pester the list master either, which is me.  Get the mailman software fixed.