> > switch(...) { > > case 1: ...; > > nobreak; /* intentional fall-through */ > > case 2: ...; > > break; > > case 3: ...; > > } > > > > Does anyone agree that `nobreak' reads much better than `skip'? > > "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"?
If we mean "fall-through", why invent a new term? Why not use the intent: C<fall_through>? Dave