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?
If we mean fall-through, why invent a new term? Why not use the
intent: Cfall_through?
Wow, keyword with
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
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Ted Ashton wrote:
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 [...]
I would like to suggest a different keyword that does not imply some
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
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
