>>"skip" was uncomfortable when I read it (I at first took it to mean
>>"skip over the following" rather than "skip to the following"), but
>>I find "nobreak" also a bit strange. How about "proceed"?
>
> If we mean "fall-through", why invent a new term? Why not use the
> intent: C?
Wow, keywor
> > switch(...) {
> >case 1: ...;
> >nobreak; /* intentional fall-through */
> >case 2: ...;
> >break;
> >case 3: ...;
> > }
> >
> > Does anyone agree that `nobreak' reads much better than `skip'?
>
> "skip" was uncomforta
On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Ted Ashton wrote:
> Thus it was written in the epistle of Dave Hartnoll,
> > > Oh, one other tweak. The RFC proposes to overload next
> > > to mean "fall through to the next case". I don't think [...]
> >
> > I would like to suggest a different keyword that does not imply s
Thus it was written in the epistle of Dave Hartnoll,
> > Oh, one other tweak. The RFC proposes to overload next
> > to mean "fall through to the next case". I don't think
> > this is wise, since we'll often want to use loop controls
> > within a switch statement. Instead, I think we should
> > use
