4 ms·

What would make you want it to explicitly not have fall-through? I can't see any negative to including it. If it's something you disagree with can't you just op

• sammorrowdrums 6y ago
  Well to be fair, I do use fallthrough in so far as I group cases that are the exact same, but fall-through with slightly different logic is very bug prone and difficult to spot when it is deliberate or an accident, so I basically never use it. Perhaps some languages conventions are different, but for example Douglas Crockford on JS: > "switch Statement A switch statement should be avoided, but when used should have this form: switch (expression) { case expression: statements default: statements } Each case is aligned with the switch. This avoids over-indentation. A case label is not a statement, and should not be indented like one. Each group of statements (except the default) should end with break, return, or throw. Do not fall through."
  • path411 6y ago
    That convention seems a little weird, but what works for different people. Normally case/break seem to light up in ides to help visually double check it has a break. Also not every language that supports fall through, supports having content inside the fall throughs. (C# I just learned recently, does not allow any code in a case that is falling through). My problem with languages trying to too strictly control stuff like this, is that this is stuff that should be handled in your code review process. Sometimes when working with old code, it's not really worth the time spent refactoring a whole switch when you need to make a small fix, vs adding a single line.