> On Oct 19, 2019, at 3:21 AM, Kris Craig <kris.cr...@gmail.com> wrote: > If we're going to do this, let's take the opportunity to make it even more > useful.
Assuming this idea truly does have momentum, I hope we do not get so focused on the `perfect` that we postpone the `good` indefinitely. There is always next version... > I love the idea of being able to explicitly define fallthrough > points in a case. Can you elaborate on this, with use-cases and syntax examples, please? > I agree that "continue" is the logically ideal solution, but the BC > breakage negates that. So I'd have to go with "next", as it's both concise > and descriptive. Given A.L.E.C.'s point about BCy, I think `next` would be much more likely to conflict with code-in-the-wild than `fallthrough.` That said, if we overload `continue` with an argument of `next`, that might be best of both worlds, e.g. `continue next;` -Mike
