On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 18:01:38 -0500, Walter Bright
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 2/17/2014 2:43 PM, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
Now suppose bit_flag can get an additional "new_bit_flag" value. How
does
"default" helps me notice that I'm supposed to add it to that switch
statement?
Because if you account for all the cases, you write:
default: assert(0);
Now you intentionally tell the user that you intentionally covered all
the cases.
Would it not be better to infer this, and you could override it by doing
default: break;?
If that's the "right way", then it should be the default way.
I agree with Ary. Sequence will go as follows:
Programmer:
switch(x)
{
case 1: statement; break;
}
Compiler: no no no, you need a default case!
Programmer: "Oh fine!"
switch(x)
{
case 1: statement; break;
default: break;
}
How is this advantageous? It just seems annoying...
-Steve
