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

[Sean Kelly]

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
> 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.

So would you say "done!" is printed or not?