Is there ANY chance we can fix the bitwise operator precedence

[Sean Kelly]

Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:

> On 06/21/2010 01:27 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> Well looks pretty good to me to be honest.

So if the initial state is X, is "done!" printed or not?