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

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 06/21/2010 06:56 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> 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.

I think that's fair enough. It's really Walter's decision now, and Don's 
too (because with Walter busy with the 64-bit implementation, it's 
likely Don is the one to volunteer to implement the thing).

Andrei