On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Ted Ashton wrote:
> Thus it was written in the epistle of Dave Hartnoll,
> > > Oh, one other tweak. The RFC proposes to overload next
> > > to mean "fall through to the next case". I don't think [...]
> >
> > I would like to suggest a different keyword that does not imply some
> > `jumping' action. For years, I have used `nobreak' in my C code when I want
> > to indicate that a case fall-through is intentional: [...]
>
> "skip" was uncomfortable when I read it (I at first took it to mean "skip over
> the following" rather than "skip to the following"), but I find "nobreak" also
> a bit strange. How about "proceed"?
>
> Ted
First, a 'me too' to everything Ted said.
Second, to me 'nobreak' is not sufficiently visually distinct from
'break'.
Dave Storrs
