On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 20:17:09 -0700, Jonathan M Davis <jmdavisp...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I, for one, _want_ case statements to be able to fall through. It would > >> be horribly painful in many cases if they couldn't. Now, requiring a > >> separate statement like fallthrough or somesuch instead of break might > >> not be a bad idea, but requiring that each case end with a break would > >> seriously restrict the usefulness of switch statements. > > > > I agree. But the basic idea is to do extra work if you're doing > > something unusual, and falling through is unusual. > > Certainly a good principle and one that D holds to for the most part - > certainly far better than many other languages. >
Follow the principle too much, though, and you end up in the Ruby (more specifically, Rails) camp. It's amazing when you don't need to do something unusual, but *man* have I had problems trying to do what I want with Rails. That said, having used C for a significant period of time, I'm well aware of the fall-through semantics and use it from time to time, but I wouldn't be opposed to removing implicit fall-through from the language. Fall-through doesn't strike me as a big issue in and of itself, but dogmatic languages aren't fun to work with either.
