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

[Adam Ruppe]

On 6/21/10, Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
> Then why are people using switch and next to nobody uses fall through
> (provably including Walter, who thinks is using fall through "all the
> time")?

Do you have some stats from the phobos and dmd source? I ran a crude
text pattern program, and it said about 10% of cases fall through in
them combined, but since it is so simple, it is surely inaccurate. (It
gave 1% for druntime, and 3% for my own code, then 10% for dmd and
phobos both. All numbers are rounded to one significant figure.

That 3% is surprising - I know I use fallthrough all the time, but
most the cases are two cases right next to each other, one one case
falling through to default, which my program didn't count. It only
considered a case to fallthrough if there was at least one semicolon
between it and the next, and it ignored "default".

If it included "case '(': case ')':", like in std.regex, it would be
much higher, but if the patch disallows that, they'll be riots in the
streets, so it isn't going to happen.)

Anywho, if my program is even in the right ballpark, I wouldn't call
that "next to nobody". 10% is a pretty big amount.




On 6/21/10, Leandro Lucarella <luca at llucax.com.ar> wrote:
> Well, while, do..while are also redundant, you can do it with for. And
> you can do for with goto!

Indeed. goto is a kind of comfort construct to me. Even if I never use
it, it is reassuring to know it is there if I need it. Anything can be
built out of goto!

> And you can still use fall-through with the proposed semantics of
> switch, it's just making it explicit instead of implicit.

I tend to write
// fallthrough
right now anyway to silence [s]the incompetent dweebs[/s] my valued
colleagues who complain about fallthrough being there, so assuming the
patch doesn't make me riot in the streets, I know it isn't really that
big of a change. But still, I resist all change on principle anyway :)