"bearophile" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Nick Sabalausky: > >> Since implicit fallthrough is going away, that's more a problem with a >> *missing* warning (in the second example) rather than an erroneous >> warning. > > Implicit fallthrough is going away, but Walter has decided to add it a > special case, when the case is totally empty it's allowed. So both > programs are correct (I don't love special cases, but here I think Walter > doesn't want to cause too much D code disruption). >
Oh, that's right, I forgot about that. Nevermind, then.
