scrhartley commented on code in PR #106:
URL: https://github.com/apache/freemarker/pull/106#discussion_r1488379515
##########
freemarker-core/src/main/javacc/freemarker/core/FTL.jj:
##########
@@ -3892,18 +3895,50 @@ SwitchBlock Switch() :
}
[
(
- caseIns = Case()
- {
- if (caseIns.condition == null) {
- if (defaultFound) {
- throw new ParseException(
- "You can only have one default case in a switch
statement", template, start);
- }
- defaultFound = true;
- }
- switchBlock.addCase(caseIns);
- }
- )+
+ (
+ caseIns = Case()
+ {
+ if (caseIns.condition == null) {
+ if (defaultFound) {
+ throw new ParseException(
+ "You can only have one default case in a switch
statement", template, start);
+ }
+ defaultFound = true;
+ }
+ switchBlock.addCase(caseIns);
+ }
+ )+
+ |
+ (
+ {
+ // A Switch with Case supports break, but not one with On.
+ // Do it this way to ensure backwards compatibility.
+ breakableDirectiveNesting--;
Review Comment:
A few lines up, at the SwitchBlock level, there's an increment. As soon as
we notice we're in the `on` case, then we undo the increment. If there was a
nested switch-case then it would be incremented again. This counter is only
used at parse time to determine if we're in a context where `break` is allowed.
Because `on` doesn't allow a closing tag, I don't think there's a possibility
for a disallowed break to accidentally be allowed between `on` tags.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: notifications-unsubscr...@freemarker.apache.org
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
us...@infra.apache.org
