> > 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
