Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
>
> 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).
It's a small thing, but I think "continue switch" could be misleading.
Consider this:
switch (getState()) {
case X:
setState(Z);
continue switch;
case Y:
break;
case Z:
writeln( "done!" );
}
Having never encountered D before, what would be your interpretation of this
code?
