Re: RFC: Highlighting Fall-throughs

[Alex Bradbury]

On 22 September 2011 22:20, Andrew Talbot  wrote:
> I therefore propose to mark each new point with two comments (maybe
> separate, maybe combined): one to state that fall-through occurs and the
> other to point out that the validity of this particular fall-through has not
> yet been checked, maybe something like:

Marking fall through cases sounds reasonable on the face of it to me.
I question the necessity of adding 'unaudited' comments though. I'd
imagine lint or one of the more sophisticated static analysis tools
could pretty easily give you a list of cases with fall-through without
a comment marking it as intentional.

Alex