From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-08 13:04:46
"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?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk