About switch case statements...

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 03:27:22 -0500, Don <nospam at nospam.com> wrote:

> Requiring 'goto' to implement fall-through would run into the prejudice  
> against 'goto'. It's necessary to persuade managers that "goto case  
> XXX;" isn't a bad, evil goto that eats babies. I have no idea if that's  
> difficult or not. Otherwise, I think it's a superb solution.
> (providing that empty fall-through case statements remain valid;  
> disallowing them would be really annoying).

It hasn't hurt C# at all...

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/06tc147t(VS.80).aspx

I haven't had any issues with it.  This reminds me of the != null  
problem.  Now if only Walter made as many mistakes with switch case  
fallthrough as he did with != null :)

Walter, at some point, you should heed the complaints of the masses even  
if it doesn't affect you.  It's like a politician who lives in a nice  
neighborhood ignoring the requests of his constituents for more police  
protection in higher crime areas because he doesn't live there.  Except  
it's worse, because we can't vote you out :)

Also keep in mind that this does *not* change the power of switch at all,  
since goto already covers fallthrough.  One thing I learned from the !=  
null to !is null change is that I stopped writing the offending code when  
I get immediate feedback.  It just gets ingrained in my brain better.  So  
having to write goto next_case;  all the time is going to be much less of  
a chore than you think, because you'll just learn to avoid that mistake in  
the first place.

-Steve