switch break/fall (last minute request ... )

[Bill Baxter]

%u wrote:
> == Quote from Hasan Aljudy (hasan.aljudy at gmail.com)'s article
>>    case C:
>>         //something
>>    case D:      <-- error, no break or fall statement before case
> D
> 
> So:
>>    case C:
>           if( b1 )
>               { fall; break;}
>           else
>               if( b2)
>                   goto case C;
>               else
>                  { break; fall;}
>>    case D:
> 
> would be legal?

I'm pretty sure this one has been discussed to death in the past, so I 
doubt any last minute plea is going to change anything,  for 1.0 at 
least. :-)

Walter's position previously has been that he didn't want to confuse the 
poor C/C++/Java converts regardless of how error-prone default fall 
through is.

If you look at the kind of code Walter writes (see parse.c in the DMD 
source in particular), you'll see that he  is quite fond of stacking up 
multiple case labels, so I doubt he'd ever agree to make
	    case TOKstruct:
	    case TOKunion:
	    case TOKclass:
	    case TOKinterface:
		s = parseAggregate();
		break;
an error.

However, what if you modify the rule slightly so that if a case follows 
another case immediately, then a 'fall' is not required?  Then Walter 
may yet find it palatable.

I'm all for it, though.  I've been debugging my own missing 'break' 
statements for 20 years now, and I still never seem to learn.

--bb