Thanks a lot for your polite and convenient replies.
This time, I decided to use nested if-else instead of switch-fallthrough.
As all of you mentioned, I have to avoid this. Maybe it's not Go style.
What I actually want to write is very little router that determines which
to provide converted fi
In first snippet, i didn't get the second if. cond1 is true anyway.
Second snippet is equivalent to
if (cond1) {
do_stuff()
do_other_stuff()
} else if cond2 {
do_other_stuff()
}
which is more straightforward than using fallthrough imo.
On Wednesday, August 2, 2017 at 9:03:35 AM
On Tue, Aug 01, 2017 at 05:54:28AM -0700, kultigin@gmail.com wrote:
> i believe you should avoid fallthrough statement except for auto-generated
> code.
>
> it's obscure what you are trying to accomplish with that piece of code, but
> surely you can do it in a better way.
They have its val
i believe you should avoid fallthrough statement except for auto-generated
code.
it's obscure what you are trying to accomplish with that piece of code, but
surely you can do it in a better way.
On Tuesday, August 1, 2017 at 2:35:00 PM UTC+2, Fumi Takeuchi wrote:
>
> Example code: https://play.
