Yes, that's what I'm aiming at. If you have something simple where the
switch is not enclosed in a loop, then bare "continue" does the obvious
thing; if there is an ambiguity, you have to say "continue label" or
"continue switch". Hence the warning now for when that might happen later.
On 5/8/2018 4:31 PM, John Rose wrote:
Brian, are you thinking that bare continue, inside switch, *inside loop*,
is an *ambiguity error*? That would be worth warning about about:
Today's correct code would become an error tomorrow:
for (;;) {
switch (x) {
case 0:
continue; // Error/warning: ambiguous unlabeled continue
}
}
The message could say "unlabeled continue is ambiguous when
nested in both switch and proper loop, repair by saying either
'continue switch' or 'continue for', or use a label."
In that case, the warnings could be sent even after feature adoption.
Eventually when the warnings turn to errors, no code changes
semantics, but some code breaks. Or make it be a warning forever.
