Chad J wrote:
http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3536
So Walter, with this you can keep your beloved fall-through.
Now can the rest of us be spared the nasty fall-through bugs, please
please please??
Also, about assert(0)... I'd be happy to change what I did if Walter and
associates feel that adding assert(0) to the list is worth its minor
complications.
(Sorry I don't have a patch for properties, but that one's harder.)
- Chad
I like having both fall through and breaking out explicit but was the
final syntax ever discussed here first?
Other possible options include 'fallthrough;' or just have the usual
goto case for falling through too and let the compiler's optimization
routines remove the unnecessary jumps when it sees the goto case as the
next in sequence.
