Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!microsoft!jimad
From: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: conditional scope and destrcutors (part 3)
Message-ID: <70506@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 6 Feb 91 20:41:17 GMT
References: <1991Jan30.124321.17051@hemel.bull.co.uk>
Reply-To: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK)
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 38

In article <1991Jan30.124321.17051@hemel.bull.co.uk> pmoore@hemel.bull.co.uk (Paul Moore) writes:
|switch(n)
|{
|	case a:
|		Class object;
|	case b:
|		......
|}
|The general concensus was that this is a programming bug that should be
|fatalled by the compiler (cfront does fatal it) - it should certainly
|issue a warning - Zortech silently accepts it.        (I am sending a copy
|of this to ztc-bugs)

Illegal -- iff object has an initializer.  But, legal switch statements
would include:

switch(n)
{
	case 1:
		printf("case 1\n");

	default:
		Class object;
}

or

switch(n)
{
	case 1:
		{ Class object; }
	case 2:
		....
}

I think it'll take awhile for compilers to get this all sorted out,
and it's not yet defined what the constraints are that compilers have
to diagnosed in this regard.