Lang. suggestion: auto-fallthrough and comparison shorthands

[BCS]

Rioshin an'Harthen wrote:
> "Frank Benoit" <keinfarbton at nospam.xyz> wrote:
> 
[...]
> It seems much more sensible that the break be implicit, instead of the 
> continue. The break, at least in code I've written, is on about 90% on the 
> cases, with the rest being fall-through. But if we can't get this, then at 
> least *warn* of a missing continue or break at the end of a case; that way, 
> the code will be much safer when we see we're missing one or the other, and 
> explicitly put it in. 
> 
> 
PLEASE don't make it *implicit*. Requirer an explicit control 
statement[*] or leave it as it is. Making the same code legal in C/C++ 
and D but with different semantics is asking for trouble.

[*] In addition to the break and continue, goto (in all its forms), 
throw, return and assert might also end a case.