This is the mail archive of the
gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Missing default in switch
In article <1YoR3.2805$pp1.60268@dfw-read.news.verio.net>,
"T.E.Dickey" <dickey@shell.clark.net> wrote:
> In comp.lang.c Nick Maclaren <nmm1@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > None of this has anything to do with the C standard, or even whether
> > a compiler should issue a diagnostic on a missing default label.
> > There are at least half a dozen methods of implementing branch
> > tables, even restricting ourselves to ones that are best in at
> > least some circumstances.
>
> (your grammar is a bit lacking in the last sentence - would you care
to
> repair it and attempt to make it sensible?)
It made sense to me. To restate what I understood it to mean:
1. There are at least half a dozen methods of implementing branch
tables.
2. Even if we exclude methods that are not the best in any
circumstances, this is still true. (Those that are not excluded
are "ones that are best in at least some circumstances", which
we are restricting ourselves to. Leaving off the "at least"
might improve the clarity of the statement.)
--
MJSR
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.