No more fall through in case statement?

[Bruce Adams]

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 00:15:25 -0000, S. <S at s.com> wrote:

> Carlos Santander Wrote:
>>
>> How about using existing D syntax?
>>
>> switch (s[i]) {
>>       case ' ', '\t', '\f', '\r', '\n', '\v':
>>           if (inword) {
>>               r ~= capitalize(s[istart .. i]);
>>               inword = false;
>>           }
>>           break;
>>
>>       default:
>>           if (!inword) {
>>               if (r.length)
>>               r ~= ' ';
>>               istart = i;
>>               inword = true;
>>           }
>>           break;
>> }
>
> This whole conversation about switch was kind of lost on me, but I have  
> to contribute this.
>
> I, at various times, have written code that depends on case statements  
> falling through, while not being identical!
>
> For example:
>
> switch(foo)
> {
> case 'bob':
>     //Do bob stuff
>     //Fall through and doo bar stuff too.
> case 'bar':
>     //Do bar stuff and exit
>     break;
>
> case 'baz':
>    //Do some baz stuff
>    break;
> }
>
> Whatever is changed shouldn't break this.

This whole conversation boggles me. cases should *never* fall through its  
dangerous.
Assuming polymorphism isn't the answer, which can often eliminate the  
switch altogether
its much cleaner, safer and better encapsulated in general to use a  
function call
to replace fall through. E.g. :

handleBar()
{
   //Do bar stuff
}

switch(foo)
{
case 'bob':
     // do bob stuff
     handleBar();
case 'bar':
     handleBar();
case 'baz':
     // do baz stuff
}

The switch can always compile to a simple look-up table that way.