Inside the switch statement

[Steve Schveighoffer]

On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 19:35:51 +0200, Saaa wrote:

>>> What kind of fall-throughs were these?
>>>
>>> A:
>>>
>>> case value1:
>>> case value2:
>>> case valueN:
>>>     code1();
>>>     break;
>>>
>>> B:
>>>
>>> case value1:
>>>     code1();
>>> case value2:
>>>     code2();
>>>     break;
>>
>> The solution is to forbid fallthrough, and change the switch syntax:
>>
>> switch(value) {
>>   case 1:
>>   case 2:
>> // something
>> break;
>> }
>>
>> gives: Error, missing break at the end of case1.
>>
>> But:
>>
>> switch(value) {
>>   case 1, 2:
>> // something
>> break;
>> }
>>
>> works as expected.
>>
>> What's wrong with that?
> 
> Doesn't support B :)

case value1:
  code1();
  goto case value2; // already valid D code
  // or
  goto case; // already valid D code
case value2:
  code2();
  break;

Should be uncommon enough that the extra clarification is warranted IMO.

I believe I've fallen victim to accidental fall-throughs more than I've 
found uses for them...

vote++

-Steve