Hello Andrei,
On 06/20/2010 09:00 PM, bearophile wrote:
Michel Fortin:
But what about the "case 1: ... case 10:" syntax?
switch (x) {
case 1: .. case 10:
case 22: .. case 32:
case 52, 64:
doSomething();
break;
default:
whatever();
break;
}
Sorry, in my first answer I have a bit partially misunderstood your
question.
You can write that like this, but I think this is not compatible with
the current syntax (after commas you can of course add a newline):
case 1: .. case 10, case 22: .. case 32, 52, 64:
Otherwise you can keep them splitted (this needs no syntax changes):
case 1: .. case 10: goto case;
case 22: .. case 32: goto case;
case 52, 64:
One of my original proposals was this, that now can not be used: case
1 ... 10, 22 ... 32, 52, 64:
The intent is to only require a control flow transfer if there is at
least one statement after the label.
Anyone who fails to include that special case in there proposal should have
there hard drive reformatted, with soap.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ktzt096mlxs
--
... <IXOYE><
