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