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

[Jonathan M Davis]

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

[snip]
> 
> 
> Andrei

Well, "goto case" and "goto case XXX" both already exist. Both get the job 
done. So, regardless of which would be better for fallthrough, we can choose 
to use whichever we want in our code. As it stands, it becomes a matter of 
preference. I'd love something like "continue switch" or "fallthrough" to 
indicate explicit fallthrough, but it isn't at all necessary, so it's not 
worth trying to get Walter to add anything like that.

At this point, if Walter makes it so that case blocks must end with a flow 
control statement of some kind, we're free to use either "goto case" or 
"goto case XXX" for fallthrough, so unless "goto case" is so bad that we 
should try to get Walter to get rid of it, I don't think that it's really an 
issue. We can use whichever one we want and not worry about it. The language 
is complete enough to require case statements to end with a control 
statement without losing any flexibility, so I think that we can agree to 
disagree on which statement is better and/or clearer and try and get Walter 
to add the compiler error for naked fallthrough.

- Jonathan M Davis