Is there ANY chance we can fix the bitwise operator precedence rules?

[Leandro Lucarella]

Andrei Alexandrescu, el 19 de junio a las 03:15 me escribiste:
> On 06/18/2010 10:08 PM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> >On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 05:22:47 +0300, Andrei Alexandrescu
> ><SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
> >
> >>Walter had no retort to that argument, so he veered into a critique of
> >>the goto case XXX solution saying it's unmaintainable: when you moving
> >>code around you want to keep on falling through but with goto you'd
> >>need to update the goto target. However, it can be argued that
> >>logically you want to continue processing at some specific logical
> >>point, not to blindly fall through to whatever the heck code happens
> >>to be there.
> >
> >Well, if "goto case XXX" is unmaintainable, how about some combination
> >of existing keywords? For example, "continue switch;".
> >
> >-- Best regards,
> >Vladimir mailto:vladimir at thecybershadow.net
> 
> Clever!

Search the archives for the multiple fall-through threads. All have been
suggested before.

http://www.digitalmars.com/d/archives/154.html#N388

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Y Gloria Carrá, Gloria Estephan, Gloria Gaynor y Gloria Trevi.
	-- Peperino Pómoro