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
>>> cou
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 li
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
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
Hi All,
I am thinking of marking any unmarked places in switch statements where
fall-through occurs. However, simply to do so would be to ignore the
question of whether each fall-through is intentional or an oversight.
I therefore propose to mark each new point with two comments (maybe
separate,
