> > Howeverm it I<is> possible to cause a C<case> statement to
> > "fall-through". If a C<next> is executed within a C<case>
> > block, control is immediately transferred to the statement
> > following the C<case> block.
>
> This seems backwards to me. Everywhere else in perl next would cause the
> next iteration of a block/loop.
And here it causes the next part of the switch (i.e. the next case) to be
attempted.
> If a switch is considered like a loop then next would be the same
> as 'break' in C, as would last and redo would repeat the switch.
But a switch is not a loop.
Within a loop the logic is:
next -> try next case
last -> this was the last case
> this would mean that fallthrough would be the default and the user
> would need a last; to break out;
Long and bitter experience indicates that fallthrough is a poor default
(but a good *option*).
Damian
