Re: [boost] upcoming Switch library review Jan 5th - Jan 9th

From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-08 13:04:46

AMDG

"Stjepan Rajko" <stipe_at_[hidden]> 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