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

[Justin Spahr-Summers]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:17:57 -0400, Adam Ruppe 
<destructionator at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> What you guys are saying makes enough sense. switch will always be a
> series of labels and jumps in my mind, but I can deal with this.
> 
> One note that I think is the main reason people find fallthrough
> confusing: they hit tab once too many times.
> 
> switch(a) {
>     case 10:
>     case 20: // obvious fallthrough, no break directly above it
>     break; // obvious break - same indentation as the case, just like
> braces would be
>     case 30:
> }
> 
> I notice a lot of other people indent the break further than the case,
> which is something I only do if the break is not the last statement
> (which means it is probably indented twice, being inside an if or
> something.)
> 
> 
> Oh well.

I would argue the exact opposite. I think it's not immediately clear 
what's associated with each case label in the example given. It's a 
matter of personal preference, though, in the end. I leave labels (both 
for switches and goto) at the left-most position of their enclosing 
block:

switch (a) {
case 5:
case 10:
    break;
default:
    ;
}

void main () {
    goto doSomething;

doSomething:
    writeln("foobar");
}

But I know there will probably be lots of people who dislike that as 
well. :P