KennyTM~ wrote:
> 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;
> }
I forgot about that one. *Sigh* D has so many cool little features that
sometimes it feels like I'm forgetting at least half of them. Oh well. It's
silly to complain that D has too much cool stuff.
In any case, that means that it could be made required to have a control
statement at the end of a case block without having to specify a specific
destination for fallthrough - though I'd prefer "continue switch" over "goto
case" since it's more explicit and less error prone (since there's no doubt
that you didn't intend to put a destination for the goto if you use
"continue switch" instead of a "goto case" without a destination). But we do
have enough to make a control statement required without adding anything
else to the language.
Thanks for pointing out that little detail of goto.
- Jonathan M Davis
