[swift-evolution] Proposal: Remove the "fallthrough" keyword
erica at ericasadun.com
Fri Dec 4 16:33:27 CST 2015
I courteously remove my objections.
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-evolution