Re: Is there ANY chance we can fix the bitwise operator precedence rules?

[KennyTM~]

On Jun 19, 10 07:17, Jonathan M Davis wrote:

bearophile wrote:

2) switch cases that don't end with goto or break:

void main() {
     int x, y;
     switch (x) {
         case 0: y++;
         default: y--;
     }
}

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.

- Jonathan M Davis

This "fallthrough" statement already exists.

    switch (x) {
       case 0:
         do_something();
         goto case;
       case 1:
         do_more_thing();
         goto case;
       case 2:
         done();
         break;
       default:
         error();
         break;
    }