Tim Matthews, el 21 de noviembre a las 18:10 me escribiste: > 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.
There is already goto case; (without specifying the case) for that, at least in the specs :) http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/statement.html#GotoStatement GotoStatement: goto Identifier ; goto default ; goto case ; goto case Expression ; [...] The third form, goto case;, transfers to the next CaseStatement of the innermost enclosing SwitchStatement. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Every year is getting shorter never seem to find the time. Plans that either come to nought or half a page of scribbled lines. Hanging on in quiet desparation is the English way. The time is gone, the song is over, thought I'd something more to say.
