Switch case problem

[aekam]

Hello all,

in QML is it necessary to wrap body of case in curly brackets.??
let's say,
@
switch (arg) {
case match1: {
step1
step2
step3
}
break

case match2: {
step1
step2
step3
}
break

default: {
step1
step2
step3
}
break
}
@

because if i don't use brackets, execution of case is carried out only for first step and remaining steps are skipped...

[chriadam]

This is probably a bug in the expression rewriter. Basically, in QML, most JavaScript expressions pass through an expression rewriter (depending on the situation; eg, a binding like: property int a: {some expression} gets rewritten as property int a: (function(){return {some expression} }).

There are a few things in JavaScript which are tricky - switch statements and the "with" statement spring to mind immediately.

If you have a simple reproduction for this issue, please create a bug report and assign it to me, I'll take a look at it.

Cheers,
Chris.

[aekam]

if i write,

@
Item {
width: 100
height: 100

 property int count: 0

 Component.onCompleted: {

      switch (count) {
      case 0:
           console.log ("1: count is zero")
           console.log ("2: count is zero")
           console.log ("3: count is zero")
           break
      default:
           console.log ("1: count is non zero")
           console.log ("2: count is non zero")
           console.log ("3: count is non zero")
           break
      }
 }

}
@

here i haven't used any brackets and hence i am not getting 2nd and 3rd console log prints, if i use brackets it prints.

[dicksonleong]

same here, in a .qml file, only the first line in a case block will be execute. However, in a .js file there is no such problem

[chriadam]

Yeah, the contents of .js file imports are (after .pragmas and .imports are stripped out) passed directly to a JavaScript engine, and thus don't suffer the same "rewriting" fate as expressions in .qml files.

Thanks for the simple repro, I'll look into this.

[MichK]

Hi,

This problem was mentioned in "this":http://qt-project.org/forums/viewthread/9897/ post