On 12/05/2009 04:19 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Ellery Newcomer"<ellery-newco...@utulsa.edu> wrote in message
More so than remembering to type break after each case block?
Good point, but that's really a separate issue.
I don't know about that. The issue seems to be you want switch to behave
in a manner unlike that of any other language that I know of.
It's different. It breaks convention.
It's a useful divergence. It's a feature that should exist. But I
contend it makes more sense to make a new construct which *is*
equivalent to a certain pattern of nested ifs (switch isn't) and
incorporate your feature into that than to shoehorn it into switch.
