removing default case requirement?

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On 3/31/23 11:20 AM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

> Why not? How much does this rule help you, vs. annoy you?

Thanks for all the replies and discussion.

I have realized from all of this that there is a major difference 
between `if` and `switch` which justifies the requirement: `switch` can 
*only* do single-value comparison. I.e. it has to be the equivalent of 
`if(a == b)`, whereas `if` can cover any number of cases or patterns 
based on boolean logic and comparisons. This makes it a lot easier to 
cover all the cases you need in one go.

`switch` on the other hand, can only cover the cases you specify. In 
something like an `int` or even a `byte`, that means full coverage is 
unwieldy or near impossible. Even with case range statements, those 
actually just get expanded to all the intermediate cases. So forgetting 
go cover cases is much more likely.

So I withdraw the suggestion. It also gives me a much better response to 
"why does D do this?"

-Steve