Switch-case made less buggy, now with PATCH!

[Tim Matthews]

Chad J wrote:
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3536
> 
> So Walter, with this you can keep your beloved fall-through.
> Now can the rest of us be spared the nasty fall-through bugs, please
> please please??
> 
> Also, about assert(0)... I'd be happy to change what I did if Walter and
> associates feel that adding assert(0) to the list is worth its minor
> complications.
> 
> (Sorry I don't have a patch for properties, but that one's harder.)
> 
> - Chad

I like having both fall through and breaking out explicit but was the 
final syntax ever discussed here first?

Other possible options include 'fallthrough;' or just have the usual 
goto case for falling through too and let the compiler's optimization 
routines remove the unnecessary jumps when it sees the goto case as the 
next in sequence.