switch()

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 18:01:38 -0500, Walter Bright  
<newshound2 at digitalmars.com> wrote:

> On 2/17/2014 2:43 PM, Ary Borenszweig wrote:
>> Now suppose bit_flag can get an additional "new_bit_flag" value. How  
>> does
>> "default" helps me notice that I'm supposed to add it to that switch  
>> statement?
>
> Because if you account for all the cases, you write:
>
>     default: assert(0);
>
> Now you intentionally tell the user that you intentionally covered all  
> the cases.

Would it not be better to infer this, and you could override it by doing  
default: break;?

If that's the "right way", then it should be the default way.

I agree with Ary. Sequence will go as follows:

Programmer:

switch(x)
{
    case 1: statement; break;
}

Compiler: no no no, you need a default case!

Programmer: "Oh fine!"

switch(x)
{
    case 1: statement; break;
    default: break;
}

How is this advantageous? It just seems annoying...

-Steve