Is there ANY chance we can fix the bitwise operator precedence

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 06/20/2010 09:00 PM, bearophile wrote:
> Michel Fortin:
>> But what about the "case 1: ... case 10:" syntax?
>>
>> 	switch (x) {
>> 		case 1: .. case 10:
>> 		case 22: .. case 32:
>> 		case 52, 64:
>> 			doSomething();
>> 			break;
>> 		default:
>> 			whatever();
>> 			break;
>> 	}
>
> Sorry, in my first answer I have a bit partially misunderstood your question.
> You can write that like this, but I think this is not compatible with the current syntax (after commas you can of course add a newline):
>
> case 1: .. case 10, case 22: .. case 32, 52, 64:
>
> Otherwise you can keep them splitted (this needs no syntax changes):
>
>                  case 1: .. case 10: goto case;
>                  case 22: .. case 32: goto case;
>                  case 52, 64:
>
> One of my original proposals was this, that now can not be used:
> case 1 ... 10, 22 ... 32, 52, 64:

The intent is to only require a control flow transfer if there is at 
least one statement after the label.

Andrei