I don't know if it's been discussed for Vala, but I can assure you the debate over switch fallthrough has been discussed to death.
I find the Vala approach to be quite sane. As a long-time C/C++ programmer, I've been burned one too many times by switch fallthrough. I can't recall any instance where it actually was necessary. By necessary I mean the other approaches were worse in measurable terms, not code aesthetics, which is more subjective than people think. I don't like the warning solution you suggested earlier. When it comes to syntax, if Vala supports or doesn't support something, I would rather it be firm about it. Deprecated syntax is the only time I can think a warning makes sense. I wouldn't cry if nobreak was introduced, but I would question it. One thing about the C# syntax, as ugly as it may be, is that it allows jumping to any other label, not merely falling through to the next. I could see two or more case blocks wanting to jump to the default block. Of course, with this kind of power comes a lot of potential for abuse. I recommend getting buy-in from the Vala maintainers before working on a patch. -- Jim On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Flemming Richter Mikkelsen <[email protected]> wrote: One thing I just though about was to use something like "!break". But I think it could cause confusion, so I would prefer a new keyword (e.g. "nobreak") or a compiler warning (instead of error). Or is it possible to write "extern C {" around the switch statement? That would not be exactly what I wanted, but would be good enough for me. I might be able to make a patch if I get some spare time. But first I like to see what the devs/maintainers think. I know there has been some discussion around this before... but since what I request is only useful in special cases, I don't know if this has ever been dicussed proper.
_______________________________________________ vala-list mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/vala-list
