About switch case statements...

[Chad J]

Chad J wrote:
> 
> There has to be a better way to do fall-through.
> 
> Maybe...
> 
> switch(foo)
> {
>     case 0;
>     case 1; bar = baz; // Executed if foo == 0
>     case 2:
>         doSomething(bar); // Executed for foo ∈ {0,1,2}
>         break; //required for compile success.
> }

or if you want it to look nicer, maybe introduce an arrow token:

switch(foo)
{
    case 0 ->
    case 1 -> bar = baz; // Executed if foo == 0
    case 2:
        doSomething(bar); // Executed for foo ∈ {0,1,2}
        break; //required for compile success.
}

It has these advantages:
* Fall-through behavior is explicit.
* Fall-through notation requires no extra lines of source, and only a
couple extra columns.

Sigh, I didn't want to discuss syntax, but that response... it makes me
want to solve problems, to say the least.