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

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 06/21/2010 01:27 PM, Sean Kelly wrote:
> Jonathan M Davis Wrote:
>>
>> In any case, that means that it could be made required to have a control
>> statement at the end of a case block without having to specify a specific
>> destination for fallthrough - though I'd prefer "continue switch" over "goto
>> case" since it's more explicit and less error prone (since there's no doubt
>> that you didn't intend to put a destination for the goto if you use
>> "continue switch" instead of a "goto case" without a destination).
>
> It's a small thing, but I think "continue switch" could be misleading.  Consider this:
>
> switch (getState()) {
> case X:
>      setState(Z);
>      continue switch;
> case Y:
>      break;
> case Z:
>      writeln( "done!" );
> }
>
> Having never encountered D before, what would be your interpretation of this code?

Well looks pretty good to me to be honest.

Andrei