Bill Baxter wrote: > On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 1:50 AM, Chad J > <chadj...@__spam.is.bad__gmail.com> wrote: >>> The argument for it comes down to this: "fallthrough is very rare and >>> therefore, most uses of fallthrough are bugs". >> Not as I remember. >> >> "inline assembly is very rare and therefore, most uses of inline >> assembly are bugs." > > Bad analogy. It's pretty much impossible to unintentionally put some > inline ASM in your code. > > --bb
That's my point. I was refuting the idea that the argument for removing fallthrough was based on its rarity. Rarity has little to do with safety. Intent has everything to do with safety.
