Re: [Vala] Request for new keyword "nobreak"

["Nelson, Jim" <jim yorba org>]

I don't know if it's been discussed for Vala, but I can assure you the debate over switch fallthrough has 
been discussed to death.

I find the Vala approach to be quite sane.  As a long-time C/C++ programmer, I've been burned one too many 
times by switch fallthrough.  I can't recall any instance where it actually was necessary.  By necessary I 
mean the other approaches were worse in measurable terms, not code aesthetics, which is more subjective than 
people think.

I don't like the warning solution you suggested earlier.  When it comes to syntax, if Vala supports or 
doesn't support something, I would rather it be firm about it.  Deprecated syntax is the only time I can 
think a warning makes sense.

I wouldn't cry if nobreak was introduced, but I would question it.  One thing about the C# syntax, as ugly as 
it may be, is that it allows jumping to any other label, not merely falling through to the next.  I could see 
two or more case blocks wanting to jump to the default block.  Of course, with this kind of power comes a lot 
of potential for abuse.

I recommend getting buy-in from the Vala maintainers before working on a patch.

-- Jim

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Flemming Richter Mikkelsen <frm member fsf org> wrote:
One thing I just though about was to use something like "!break". 
But I think it could cause confusion, so I would prefer a new keyword (e.g. 
"nobreak") or a compiler warning (instead of error). 

Or is it possible to write "extern C {" around the switch statement? That 
would not be exactly what I wanted, but would be good enough for me. 

I might be able to make a patch if I get some spare time. But first I like 
to see what the devs/maintainers think. 

I know there has been some discussion around this before... but since what 
I request is only useful in special cases, I don't know if this has ever 
been dicussed proper.