bearophile wrote:
Andrei:
The intent is to only require a control flow transfer if there is at least one
statement after the label.<
The current switch syntax is already very hairy (even lot of people on this
newsgroup are ignorant about some parts of it!) and it contains one or more
special cases. So I suggest to avoid adding one more special case. Special
cases are bad.
You seem to be doing the best you can to torpedo this proposal by adding
an extra requirement to it, which is both painful and useless.
Please stop now.
