The Sins of K&R

[Christopher R Volpe]

In article <4b0hPyW00Vp8M7qVd1 at andrew.cmu.edu>, jh4o+ at andrew.cmu.edu
(Jeffrey T. Hutzelman) writes:
|>volpe at 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 at crd.ge.com