Thus it was written in the epistle of Dave Hartnoll,
> > Oh, one other tweak. The RFC proposes to overload next
> > to mean "fall through to the next case". I don't think
> > this is wise, since we'll often want to use loop controls
> > within a switch statement. Instead, I think we should
> > use skip to do that. (To be read as "Skip to the next
> > statement.")
>
> I would like to suggest a different keyword that does not imply some
> `jumping' action. For years, I have used `nobreak' in my C code when I want
> to indicate that a case fall-through is intentional:
>
> #define nobreak
>
> switch(...) {
> case 1: ...;
> nobreak; /* intentional fall-through */
> case 2: ...;
> break;
> case 3: ...;
> }
>
> Does anyone agree that `nobreak' reads much better than `skip'?
"skip" was uncomfortable when I read it (I at first took it to mean "skip over
the following" rather than "skip to the following"), but I find "nobreak" also
a bit strange. How about "proceed"?
Ted
--
Ted Ashton ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) | From the Tom Swifty collection:
Southern Adventist University | "I'm knitting a sweater for my guppy", said
Deep thought to be found at | Tom wolfishly.
http://www.southern.edu/~ashted |
