On 18 February 2014 09:01, 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. I think 'final switch' should do that for you, and by typing final, you've intentionally covered the case. There's no room for mistake then.
