Linus Torvalds writes: (Summary) wrote:
Yes.
Yes.
That said, maybe one option would be to annotate the "case:" and "default:" statements if that makes people happier. IOW, we could do something like
IOW, we could do something like
#define fallthrough __atttibute__((fallthrough))
#define fallthrough __atttibute__((fallthrough))
and then write
and then write
fallthrough case 1:
...
...
which while absolutely not traditional, might look and read a bit more logical to people. I mean, it literally _is_ a "fallthrough case", so it makes semantic sense.
it makes semantic sense.
Or maybe people hate that kind of "making up new syntax" too?
[...]
end of the 1970sYes.
Yes.
That said, maybe one option would be to annotate the "case:" and "default:" statements if that makes people happier. IOW, we could do something like
IOW, we could do something like
#define fallthrough __atttibute__((fallthrough))
#define fallthrough __atttibute__((fallthrough))
and then write
and then write
fallthrough case 1:
...
...
which while absolutely not traditional, might look and read a bit more logical to people. I mean, it literally _is_ a "fallthrough case", so it makes semantic sense.
it makes semantic sense.
Or maybe people hate that kind of "making up new syntax" too?