Re: RFC: Highlighting Fall-throughs

[Michael Stefaniuc]

Andrew Talbot wrote:
> Andrew Talbot wrote:
> > Alex Bradbury wrote:
> > > 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
>
> On further reflection, I think you are right. The single comment is enough 
> on its own.

Yes, because you do audit the code when you add it ;)
Marcus added a few of those too and fixed some others where the fall
through was a bug.

bye
    michael