Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!crdgw1!underdog!volpe
From: volpe@underdog.crd.ge.com (Christopher R Volpe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: The Sins of K&R
Message-ID: <12252@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>
Date: 28 Sep 90 19:23:01 GMT
References: <31604@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <12180@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> <2487@lectroid.sw.stratus.com>, <4b0hPyW00Vp8M7qVd1@andrew.cmu.edu>
Sender: news@crdgw1.crd.ge.com
Reply-To: volpe@underdog.crd.ge.com (Christopher R Volpe)
Lines: 28

In article <4b0hPyW00Vp8M7qVd1@andrew.cmu.edu>, jh4o+@andrew.cmu.edu
(Jeffrey T. Hutzelman) writes:
|>volpe@underdog.crd.ge.com (Christopher R Volpe) writes
|>
|>
|>> Ok, how about requiring the programmer to make it explicit when
|>> he/shewants it to fall through, rather than making that the default?
|>> Like so:
|>>
|>>switch(ch)
|>>     {
|>>     case 'a':
|>>        do_a();
|>>        continue;
|>>     case 'b':
|>>        do_a_or_b();
|>>     }
|>
|>No!!!  I LIKE being able to do the following:
[deleted example using continue statement]

Sorry, I didn't mean to overload that keyword. I should have suggested
a new keyword, although I can't think of a good one right now...
                                              
==================
Chris Volpe
G.E. Corporate R&D
volpecr@crd.ge.com