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

[Sean Kelly]

Jonathan M Davis Wrote:

> Sean Kelly wrote:
> > 
> > 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?
> 
> I hadn't thought of that. That could be a source of confusion. However, 
> since a switch statement isn't a loop, and it's not a construct in any other 
> language AFAIK, the person will look it up
...
> Personally, I think that the fact that it's less error prone alone makes it 
> a better choice even if it were somewhat less clear.

I'm inclined to agree.  This is just the first thing that popped into my mind when I saw "continue switch" and I figured I'd bring it up.