Let's call it `then` - STUPID

[downs]

downs wrote:
> Jesse Phillips wrote:
>> I haven't given it much thought, but I figured I'd let some other people 
>> look at it too.
>>
>> Switch statements are nice, many people hate having to use break; all the 
>> time, but I don't and am not interest in the debate. What I think is 
>> missing from a switch statement is a finally section. Most of the time I 
>> don't have a use for the fall-through feature of switch, but I do have a 
>> use for doing one or more things that are the same in every case.
>>
>> As I haven't given it a lot of thought I will leave out some constraint 
>> ideas, and just see other peoples thoughts. I don't think it would ruin 
>> compatibility of any sort (backwards or C).
> 
> This can be generalized.
> 
> I would ask to introduce the keyword "then" to indicate "this is run after the previous construct has successfully completed, executing at least one branch."
> 
> It could be applicable to [do/]while-loops as well as switches.
> 
> Finally is an already existing keyword, which could lead to problems with parsing.
> 
>  --downs

I am stupid. If the OP was an april fools, I fell for it hook, line and sinker.

I had completely forgotten that switch already covers all cases.

Ignore this keyword for switches please, folks.

(I still think it's a good idea for loops)

 --downs