On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 12:06 AM A.L.E.C <a...@alec.pl> wrote:
> On 10/18/19 8:57 PM, Mike Schinkel wrote:
>
> Imo, this would make more sense if fallthrough did something more, e.g.
> allowing
>
> case X:
> if (something) {
> fallthrough;
> }
> something-else;
> break;
> case Y: ....
>
>
+1
If we're going to do this, let's take the opportunity to make it even more
useful. I love the idea of being able to explicitly define fallthrough
points in a case.
I agree that "continue" is the logically ideal solution, but the BC
breakage negates that. So I'd have to go with "next", as it's both concise
and descriptive.
--Kris
