About switch case statements...

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
> 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.

My thoughts exactly. But that being said, if a guy can't design his own 
language to cater for what he thinks he frequently does (massive, 
overwhelming, and exhausting evidence to the contrary notwithstanding), 
then where is freedom in this world?

:o)

Andrei