switch break/fall (last minute request ... )

[Jason House]

Bill Baxter wrote:
> If you look at the kind of code Walter writes (see parse.c in the DMD 
> source in particular), you'll see that he  is quite fond of stacking up 
> multiple case labels, so I doubt he'd ever agree to make
>         case TOKstruct:
>         case TOKunion:
>         case TOKclass:
>         case TOKinterface:
>         s = parseAggregate();
>         break;
> an error.
> 
> However, what if you modify the rule slightly so that if a case follows 
> another case immediately, then a 'fall' is not required?  Then Walter 
> may yet find it palatable.
> 
> I'm all for it, though.  I've been debugging my own missing 'break' 
> statements for 20 years now, and I still never seem to learn.

I like this modified suggestion too.

   Not to confuse the issue, but at least some thought should be given 
to using the continue keyword instead of a new keyword.  The break 
keyword in switches already conflicts with the break keyword in loops... 
just like a continue keyword would too.  I think the real show stopper 
is that it could lead to different behavior between C and D.  I don't 
know if any thought has gone into disambiguating the continue (or break) 
keyword with nested loops.  The same thing could be used here.