[swift-evolution] Proposal: Remove the "fallthrough" keyword

[Erica Sadun]

I courteously remove my objections.

-- E


> On Dec 4, 2015, at 3:25 PM, Ray Fix <rayfix at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Dec 4, 2015, at 2:20 PM, Ray Fix <rayfix at gmail.com <mailto:rayfix at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Dec 4, 2015, at 2:16 PM, Greg Titus <greg at omnigroup.com <mailto:greg at omnigroup.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Streza’s source code is an example of Duff’s Device, which is a big place where switch fallthrough is arguably the cleanest way to do things and the reason why I’d personally prefer to keep it as part of the language.
>> 
>> Yes.  You beat me to it but I agree.  I think having fallthrough could be an important performance optimization as refactoring would either result in the overhead of a function call or replicated code.   I would also prefer to keep it in the toolbox.
>> 
> 
> I should have mentioned that 99% of the time the overhead of a function call doesn’t matter, but when it does… it is great to have.
> 
> Ray Fix
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> swift-evolution mailing list
> swift-evolution at swift.org
> https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/attachments/20151204/5929967c/attachment.html>