Re: Adding explicit intent for SWITCH/CASE fall through?

On 10/18/19 8:57 PM, Mike Schinkel wrote: >> Suggestion: next; instead? > > I am agnostic about which word is used, so I would open up for suggestions if others think > there is a better word than fallthrough. > > As far as I care, it could be any of the following[1] as long as the functionality was the same > (this is me being a little tongue-in-cheek here): > > - proceed > - carry_on > - persevere > - keep_going > - go_ahead > - advance > - go_forward > - keep_on > - furthermore Or "pass", but very good candidate for consistency should be "continue". Of course that would be a big BC break. Imo, this would make more sense if fallthrough did something more, e.g. allowing case X: if (something) { fallthrough; } something-else; break; case Y: .... Going this way we could imagine that fallthrough N could allow skipping N following cases and fallthrough default jumping to the default section. Then, don't we need a way to jump outside of the whole switch statement? Ah, there's goto already. So, maybe extend goto somehow? I'm just throwing some ideas to consider, I don't pretend they are good. Adding a no-op keyword does not make much sense to me. It might be not useful enough to justify a BC break. You could call it "noop" as well. -- Aleksander 'A.L.E.C' Machniak Kolab Groupware Developer [http://kolab.org] Roundcube Webmail Developer [http://roundcube.net] ---------------------------------------------------- PGP: 19359DC1 # Blog: https://kolabian.wordpress.com