AMDG "Stjepan Rajko" <stipe@asu.edu> wrote:

Hi Alexander,

Thanks for the example and the assembly analysis. Off the top of my head, it doesn't seem like it would be too difficult to add support for fall-through directly (e.g., by taking an (optional?) sequence of MPL bool constants to specify whether a case should fall through or break/return). Although, the difficult part might be deciding how to deal with return values in this case.

Steven, what do you think?

Of course, we can't use the return value of a case that should fall through to the next case... For non-void return types we could make an actual return type of void indicate fallthrough. Hmmm... That seems too error prone. How about creating a fallthrough_t for the return type? In Christ, Steven Watanabe