Is there ANY chance we can fix the bitwise operator precedence rules?

[Sean Kelly]

Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
> 
> In any case, that means that it could be made required to have a control 
> statement at the end of a case block without having to specify a specific 
> destination for fallthrough - though I'd prefer "continue switch" over "goto 
> case" since it's more explicit and less error prone (since there's no doubt 
> that you didn't intend to put a destination for the goto if you use 
> "continue switch" instead of a "goto case" without a destination).

It's a small thing, but I think "continue switch" could be misleading.  Consider this:

switch (getState()) {
case X:
    setState(Z);
    continue switch;
case Y:
    break;
case Z:
    writeln( "done!" );
}

Having never encountered D before, what would be your interpretation of this code?