Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 03:27:22 -0500, Don <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
Requiring 'goto' to implement fall-through would run into the
prejudice against 'goto'. It's necessary to persuade managers that
"goto case XXX;" isn't a bad, evil goto that eats babies. I have no
idea if that's difficult or not. Otherwise, I think it's a superb
solution.
(providing that empty fall-through case statements remain valid;
disallowing them would be really annoying).
It hasn't hurt C# at all...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/06tc147t(VS.80).aspx
I haven't had any issues with it. This reminds me of the != null
problem. Now if only Walter made as many mistakes with switch case
fallthrough as he did with != null :)
Walter, at some point, you should heed the complaints of the masses even
if it doesn't affect you. It's like a politician who lives in a nice
neighborhood ignoring the requests of his constituents for more police
protection in higher crime areas because he doesn't live there. Except
it's worse, because we can't vote you out :)
Also keep in mind that this does *not* change the power of switch at
all, since goto already covers fallthrough. One thing I learned from
the != null to !is null change is that I stopped writing the offending
code when I get immediate feedback. It just gets ingrained in my brain
better. So having to write goto next_case; all the time is going to be
much less of a chore than you think, because you'll just learn to avoid
that mistake in the first place.
My thoughts exactly. But that being said, if a guy can't design his own
language to cater for what he thinks he frequently does (massive,
overwhelming, and exhausting evidence to the contrary notwithstanding),
then where is freedom in this world?
:o)
Andrei
