Andrei Alexandrescu <seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote: > On 06/21/2010 01:27 PM, Sean Kelly wrote: >> 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? > > Well looks pretty good to me to be honest.
So would you say "done!" is printed or not?