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

[Leandro Lucarella]

Andrei Alexandrescu, el 21 de junio a las 15:25 me escribiste:
> 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.

goto next case; is a little more verbose but very clear to me :)

Maybe just next case; is a shorter alternative...

-- 
Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca)                     http://llucax.com.ar/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145  104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
CONDUCTOR BORRACHO CASI PROVOCA UNA TRAGEDIA: BATMAN UNICO TESTIGO
	-- Crónica TV